Gouranga Charan Sethy Vs Srimati Ranjukta Sethy — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Gouranga Charan Sethy Vs Srimati Ranjukta Sethy — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned trial Court erred in awarding maintenance to the opposite party-wife despite counsel's claim that she had voluntarily deserted the petitioner-husband without lawful excuse, and whether this Court should interfere with the impugned order or its quantum.

Court's answer

The plea advanced by the petitioner-husband that the opposite party-wife deserted him is fallacious and merits no consideration, because the impugned order expressly records that, per the report of the Principal Councilor dated 25.11.2020, the OP-wife had agreed to stay together as spouse in one roof whereas the petitioner-husband had denied to stay together.

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner-husband had denied to stay together and had not filed any appropriate application before the appropriate Court of Law evidencing intent to reunite, and since no other ground was urged challenging the impugned order or the quantum of maintenance, this Court does not consider it proper to interfere with the impugned order, the trial Court having determined that the petitioner is the married husband of the opposite party with liability under law to maintain his wife unable to maintain herself.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revision application (RPFAM) dismissed. Petitioner-husband Gouranga Charan Sethy (counsel P.S. Das) sought revision under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the CrPC and Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 08.12.2023 passed in Criminal Petition No. 77 of 2019 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Keonjhar awarding the opposite party-wife Srimati Ranjukta Sethy maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month. Counsel argued the wife had voluntarily deserted the husband without lawful excuse. Perusing the impugned order, the Court found it expressly stated therein that, per the report of the Principal Councilor dated 25.11.2020, the OP-wife had agreed to stay together as spouse in one roof while the petitioner-husband had denied to stay together; the desertion plea was accordingly 'fallacious and merits no consideration'. With no other ground urged challenging the order or its quantum, and no application filed by the petitioner evidencing any intent to reunite, the Court considered interference improper, the trial Court having concluded that the petitioner is the married husband of the opposite party with liability under law to maintain his wife unable to maintain herself. Justice G. Satapathy (oral order dated 30.10.2024) dismissed the RPFAM.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RPFAM No.60 of 2024

Gouranga Charan Sethy

Petitioner

Mr. P.S.Das, Advocate

-versus-

Srimati Ranjukta Sethy

… Opposite Party

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

ORDER(ORAL)

Order No.

01.

30.10.2024

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

This is a revision application by the petitioner-husband Under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the CrPC and Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 assailing the order dated 08.12.2023 passed in Criminal Petition No. 77 of 2019 by which the learned Judge Family Court, Keonjhar awarded maintenance to the opposite party-wife @ Rs.3,000/- per month.

In assailing the impugned order, Mr.Partha Sarathi Das, learned counsel for the petitionerhusband strenuously argues to convince the Court that the opposite party-wife has voluntarily deserted the petitioner-husband without any lawful excuse, but ignoring such fact, the learned trial Court has passed the impugned order and, thereby the impugned order

Page 1 of 2

is unsustainable in the eye of law. However, on perusal of impugned order, it is explicitly stated therein that in terms of the report of Principal Councilor dated 25.11.2020 the OP-wife herein had agreed to stay together with opposite party as spouse in one roof, but the petitioner-husband herein had denied to stay together and thereby, the plea of wife deserting the husband as advanced by the petitionerhusband is fallacious and merits no consideration. Consequently, no other ground has been urged by the petitioner-husband challenging the impugned order or quantum of maintenance. Had the petitioner any intention to stay together with the opposite party-wife, he could have filed appropriate application before the appropriate Court of Law, but that having not done by the petitioner-husband, this Court does not consider it proper to interfere with the impugned order since it is arrived at by the learned trial Court that the petitioner is the married husband of the opposite party and he has liability under law to maintain his wife unable to maintain herself.

In the result, the RPFAM stands dismissed.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO kishore Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 06-Nov-2024 12:32:51

Page 2 of 2