Judgment · High Court

: Mr. S.Mohapatra, Advocate : Mr. H. Mohanty, Advocate For Opposite Parties CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:20.11.2024(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J.

#1. The short grievance of the Petitioner-husband is for reduction of quantum of maintenance to the OPs- wife and son.

#3. Heard, Mr. Satyajit Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Haripad Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties and perused the record. RPFAM No.1 of 2024

#4. Before embarking upon the contention and challenge of the Petitioner on merit, this Court considers it apt to extract paragraph-6(vi) of the impugned judgment in which the learned trial Court while taking the issue of the quantum of maintenance has assessed the monthly income of the Petitioner- husband and the same reads as under:- “6.vi. So far as the quantum is concerned, it is clear that the O.P. has focused more in leading evidence that he has no money to pay. He has not succeeded in his approach. He admits that his father has a tea stall at Nayasadak, Cuttack. He had a tea stall at if his Patia, Bhubaneswar. So, even contention during accepted expansion of road his tea stall was broken, still then there is no bar for him to continue with the tea stall business he earlier had at some other place. He has no physical deformity or disability not to earn sufficient. It was the duty of the O.P. to prove his own income. Although it is her claim that her husband runs two snacks shops with tea stalls and is earning Rs.60,000/- P.M. But I hold this is a fantastic statement coming from her especially when she has not proved anything relating to the income of her husband. It was argued for the O.P. that the petitioner has not proved his income. It is not possible in this case. She has claimed Rs.25,000/- for herself and her son. In the fact and circumstances of this case, I must hold that the O.P. is also stating falsehood RPFAM No.01 of 2024 concerning his income. He is definitely attempting to hide his income more than revealing. He admits not to have paid any money to his wife in the meantime, after her departure. This proves him to be a negligent husband and father. For the purpose of this case, I would hold that notionally the income of the O.P. to be at least Rs.30,000/- P.M. I also hold and conclude that the petitioners are definitely entitled to get maintenance.”

#5. The relation between the parties is never disputed, but the income of the Petitioner-husband as assessed by the learned trial Court is disputed by the Petitioner-husband on the ground that he had lost his avocation in the road widening, but it is not disputed that he is able bodied man and he knows the trade to earn inasmuch as he was earlier running a tea stall and right now, his father is also running a tea stall at different place. Further, even if the contention of the Petitioner-husband is taken into consideration that he had lost his livelihood because the tea stall has been removed during road widening, but that would not prevent the Petitioner-husband to do fresh business of tea stall in a separate place. The Petitioner-husband has not brought on record any material to indicate RPFAM No.01 of 2024 Page 3 of 5 that he is unable to do any business or profession to earn his livelihood, but in law, he is not only required to maintain his wife, but also has to shoulder the responsibility of his son because the husband has got a solemn duty to maintain his wife and children who are unable to maintain themselves. In a revisional proceeding, appreciation of evidence is impermissible, unless the finding of facts recorded in the impugned judgment/order is without any evidence or the finding is so perverse that a prudent man cannot accept the same. In the present case, on a careful appraisal of the impugned judgment together with the evidence on record, this Court does not find any error apparent on the finding of the learned trial Court that the husband income is notionally @ Rs.30,000/- per month. When this Court concurs the finding with regard to income of the Petitioner-husband, there is no need to interfere with the quantum of maintenance as awarded to the OPs-wife and son. RPFAM No.01 of 2024

#6. In the result, the revision petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed on contest, but in the circumstance, without any costs. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 20th of November, 2024/Priyajit Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 22-Nov-2024 14:36:00 RPFAM No.01 of 2024 Page 5 of 5