AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 332 wordsK.R. Mohapatra, J
1.This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
Petitioner in this RPFAM seeks to assail the order dated 17th March, 2022 passed in Cr.P. No.2 of 2016, whereby learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur allowing an application filed by the Opposite Party under Section 125 Cr.P.C., directed the Petitioner to pay her maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/-per month from the date of application, i.e., 2nd October, 2016 along with arrear amount.
Mr. Mallick, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was serving under a Contractor in Neelanchal Ispat Nigam Ltd. As said Organization has been closed, he does not have any fixed income at present. The Opposite Party has also illicit relationship with the brother of the Petitioner. Hence, she is not entitled to maintenance in view of Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C.
3.1 It is his contention that learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur making an imaginary assessment, awarded the maintenance, which is not sustainable.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of record, it appears that the Opposite Party in her Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stated that her husband (present Petitioner) was earning Rs.30,000/- per month; whereas the Petitioner in his objection stated that he was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. No material was placed before the learned Judge, Family Court by the present Petitioner with regard to his actual income. In that view of the matter, learned Judge, Family Court on assessment of materials on record and taking into consideration that the Petitioner is an able-bodied person and his earning would not be less than Rs.13,000/- per month, proceeded to determine the maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to be paid to the Opposite Party-wife.
Taking into consider the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the discussion made by learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur, I find any infirmity in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the RPFAM being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.
………………………