Somanath Mohapatra vs Harapriya Moharana

K.R. Mohapatra, J

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Judgment dated 3rd October, 2023 (Annexure-1) passed in Cr.P. No.187 of 2022 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal entertaining an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. directed the Petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the Opposite Party-wife.

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the marital relationship between the parties is not disputed. However, due to some health problems of the Opposite Party, there was some dissention between them. The Opposite Party left the matrimonial home without any justifiable reason. The Petitioner is working as Asst. Post Master at Indipur Post Office and is getting a salary of Rs.15,091/- per month. He has his ailing old mother depending on him. Although learned Judge, Family Court accepted the monthly income of the Petitioner to be Rs.15,091/-, but directed him to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the Opposite Party.

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner also relied upon the case of Rashmita Rout @ Barala –v- Maheswar Barala, reported in DMC (II) 2001 113 and submits that the wife is entitled to 1/5th monthly salary of the husband as maintenance. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order under Annexure-1 warrants interference.

Taking note of the submission made by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it appears that the relationship between the parties is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the Opposite Party does not have any independent source of income. Although the plea of desertion of the Opposite party without any justifiable reason was raised, but, it could not be established. The monthly income of the Petitioner is also not disputed.

The only question that is to be considered in this RPFAM is the quantum of maintenance, the Opposite Party would be entitled to. In the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury –v- Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, reported in (2017) 14 SCC 200, Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that the wife is entitled up to 1/4th of the salary of the husband. There cannot be any arithmetical calculation to determine the exact amount of maintenance. The Court has to make a guess work taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, mutual requirements and expenditure of the parties. The Court while deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall also keep in mind that the status, wife would have maintained being with her husband. Taking note of the same, learned Judge, Family Court directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the Opposite Party-wife. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do find it to be unreasonable.

Accordingly, the RPFAM being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

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

.……………………………