Binod Kumar Sahu @ Sahoo vs Sasmita Jena @ Sahu And Others

K.R. Mohapatra, J

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Judgment dated 3rd October, 2018 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Khurda in Criminal Petition No.57 of 2018 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby allowing an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance at the enhanced rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to each of the opposite Parties.

Mr. Prusty, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in the meantime, Opposite Party No.2 namely, Priyanka Priyadarsini Sahu has already got married. The Opposite Parties are staying in the house of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is working as a driver and his net salary was Rs.25,363/- per month at the relevant time, out of which it has been directed to part with half of the salary to the Opposite Parties as maintenance. Hence, the same is not reasonable. He further submits that in view of the direction made, it is very difficult on the part of the Petitioner to pay the maintenance. However, he is paying Rs.9,000/- per month to the Opposite Parties as maintenance regularly till date. Hence, he prays for modifying the impugned order under Annexure-4 by reducing the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid.

Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that in the meantime, the Petitioner has remarried. He has no instruction as to whether the Opposite Parties are staying in the house of the Petitioner. However, considering the facts and circumstances and cost of living, learned Judge, Family Court has directed to pay the maintenance at the enhanced rate as above, which warrants no interference.

Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that when the Opposite Party No.2 has already got married, she is not entitled to any maintenance. It is submitted by Mr. Prusty, learned counsel that the Petitioner is regularly paying Rs.9,000/- per month to the Opposite Parties till date.

In that view of the matter, this Court feels that 9,000/-per month to the Opposite Parties as maintenance is not unreasonable taking into consideration the income of the Petitioner vis-à-vis the requirement of the Opposite Parties (except Opp. Party No.2) and the cost of the living.

Accordingly, this Court modifying the impugned order under Annexure-4 directs that the Petitioner shall go on paying maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to the Opposite Party Nos. 1, 3 and 4. It is made clear that Opposite Party Nos.1, 3 and 4 will be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. till they attain majority.

With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order under Annexure-4, the RPFAM is disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

…………………………………