Pratap Kumar Sethy vs Sasmita Sethy

K.R. Mohapatra, J

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Petitioner in this RPFAM seeks to assail the judgment order dated 28th September, 2023 (Annexure-6) passed in Criminal Proceeding No.195 of 2019, whereby learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance to the Opposite Party from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 26th September, 2019.

Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that relationship between the parties is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the Petitioner is working in BSF and was getting salary of Rs.75,093/- per month, but his income varies from month to month depending upon the place of posting. Thus, a direction to pay Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance to the Opposite Party is highly unreasonable and the Petitioner is not in a position to pay the same, as he has other dependants. The Petitioner also has personal expenditures. He further submits that the Opposite Party should be paid 1/4th of his salary as maintenance.

Mr. Chakravorty, learned counsel for the Opposite Party though no disputed the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner, but submits that taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Judge, Family Court directed to pay a maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month, which should not be interfered with. Since the Petitioner is in BSF, he gets other perquisites along with his salary. Those are non-taxable and hence the maintenance directed to be paid to the Opposite Party should not be interfered with.

Taking note of the submission of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the Petitioner is getting a net pay of Rs.75,093/- per month. It is, however, submitted by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the same varies every month depending on the place of posting and deployment of the Petitioner. In the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2383, it is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that a wife is entitled up to 1/4th of the salary of the husband. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the wife-Opposite party does not have any independent source of income.

Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the case law in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury (supra), this Court directs that the Petitioner shall go on paying Rs.16,000/- per month to the Opposite Party as maintenance from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., i.e., 26th September, 2019. The impugned order is modified to the aforesaid extent.

The RPFAM is disposed of accordingly.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.

……………………………