Jayaban Pradhan vs Premalata Pradhan

K.R. Mohapatra, J

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Judgment dated 31st March, 2016 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Kandhamala, Phulbani in C.R.P. No.76 of 2015 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,500/- per month to the Opposite Party from the date of filing of the application, i.e., from 3rd August, 2015.

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that admittedly, there is no material on record with regard to income of the Petitioner. During the relevant period, the Petitioner was working as a contractual teacher and his salary was not enough to pay the maintenance as directed. Since the Opposite Party claims maintenance, the burden is on her to prove the income of the Petitioner, which she failed. As such, the finding of learned Judge, Family Court is without any basis and is liable to be set aside.

Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the Opposite Party submits that the income of a person is in his special knowledge and in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, burden is on him to prove the same. In the instant case, neither the Petitioner examined himself nor produced any material with regard to his income. Admittedly, he is working as a teacher. Thus, learned Judge, Family Court making a guess work and considering the requirements of the Opposite Party has directed to pay the maintenance. Hence, the same warrants no interference.

Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the Petitioner, who was the Opposite Party in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before learned Judge, Family Court, Phulbani neither examined himself nor produced any document in support of his case. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the Opposite Party, the burden is on the Petitioner to prove his income. Since no material is available on record with regard to income of the Petitioner, learned Judge, Family Court had to make a guess work and considering the requirements of the Opposite Party, directed to pay the maintenance as above. The same does not appear to be unreasonable. As such, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned judgment under Annexure-1.

In view of the above, the RPFAM being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

Interim order dated 10th April, 2017 passed in Misc. Case No.40 of 2017 stands vacated.

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

………………………………….