Chhabila Naik vs Kanchani Patel

B. Panigrahi, J.—This appeal is directed against the order dated 13-2-2001 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court. Rourkela in Civil Proceeding No. 108 of 2001 in an application u/s 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act directing the appellant to pay Rs. 800/- per month to the respondent-wife towards maintenance.

The respondent-wife had claimed to be the legally married wife of the appellant-husband. The marriage had been solemnised some time in the month of Aswina. 1981. Immediately after the marriage, the appellant neglected to maintain his wife. Therefore, the respondent filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 66 of 1989 u/s 125, Cr. P. C. In the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh which was eventually dismissed on 18-3-1991. Against such order of dismissal, the respondent carried the matter in revision before the learned District Judge, Sundargarh in Criminal Revision No. 15 of 1991. The respondent-wife also filed a suit being T. S. No. 54 of 1991 in the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela which was decreed in her favour declaring her to be the legally married wife of the appellant. After disposal of the suit, the revisional Court, basing on the observation of the learned Judge, Family Court, remanded the maintenance matter u/s 125, Cr. P. C. to the learned S.D.J.M. who vide order dated 7-8-1992. fixed the monthly maintenance @ Rs. 250/-. Dis-sat-isfied with the quantum, the respondent again approached the District Judge in revision, who by order dated 20-8-1993 enhanced the same to Rs. 450/- per month. She also filed a Criminal Proceeding for realisation of the arrear maintenance from February. 2000 to August, 2000.

The appellant is working as a trained graduate teacher, whose income must be more than Rs. 5,000/-. The marriage between both the spouses is not in dispute. It has also been admitted that the respondent was getting maintenance @ Rs. 450/- per month from 1989 onwards. The learned Judge, Family Court fixed the amount @ Rs. 800/- per month on the basis of the present pay structure of the appellant and also the social status of the parties. In our view, the amount of Rs. 800/- is a modest estimation and we find no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court.

Accordingly, we do not find any merits in this appeal and the same is dismissed.

P.K. Misra, J.

I agree.