The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.566 of 2024 Partha Sarathi Sahoo … Petitioner Mr. B.S. Panigrahi, Advocate -versus- … Opposite Party Mr. P.S. Das, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER(ORAL) 11.11.2024 Sasmita Naik Order No. 07. I.A. No.10709 of 2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Bhawani Sankar Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to not press the present IA application. 3. Accordingly, the IA stands disposed of as not pressed. W.P.(C) No.566 of 2024 4. This writ petition by the petitioner-husband seeks to challenge the order dated 09.11.2023 passed in IA No.09 of 2022 arising out of CP No.162/449 of 2021 by which the learned Judge, Family Court, Keonjhar directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to OP-wife as an interim maintenance w.e.f. 28.07.2022 till disposal of the CP No.162/449 of 2021. Page 1 of 5 5. It is not disputed that the petitioner and OP are husband and wife, but due to dissension, the petitioner-husband has filed the aforesaid proceeding against the OP-wife for dissolution of marriage in CP No.162/449 of 2021, wherein the OP-wife has filed the aforesaid IA No.09 of 2022, which was allowed by the learned Judge, Family Court by the impugned order. 6. In the course of hearing, Mr. Bhawani Sankar Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding for dissolution of marriage in CP No.162/449 of 2021 is on the verge of its completion and the evidence from the side of the petitioner- husband has already been closed and right now, the OP-wife has already filed his examination-in-Chief, which is awaiting for cross-examination, but the OP- wife is not cooperating for disposal of the case. It is further submitted by Mr. Panigrahi that although the petitioner-husband is ready to pay the interim maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month till disposal of the proceeding, but the OP-wife with an ulterior motive is dragging the litigation, however, the fact remains that the petitioner-husband has already been retrenched from service which fact the learned Judge, Family Court has failed to take note of, while awarding the interim maintenance to OP-wife and, therefore, by making the interim order as modified by this Court granting Rs.3,000/- per month to the OP-wife be Page 2 of 5 absolute, the present writ petition may kindly be
Decision
disposed of. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Partha Sarathi Das, learned counsel for the OP-wife, however, strongly opposes such prayer of the petitioner by inter-alia submitting that since the monthly income of petitioner was Rs.67,964/-, the grant of interim maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- to the OP-wife is not exorbitant or excessive, rather it is commensurate the status of the parties and the petitioner-husband having already taken up job in J.K. Insurance Company as a Claim Manager and earning handsome salary, the award of interim maintenance as granted to the OP-wife for an interim period should not be interfered with. Accordingly, Mr. Das has prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. After having bestowed an anxious and careful consideration to the rival submission upon perusal of record, there appears no dispute that the learned trial Court by making a detailed analysis of evidence on record has passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the OP-wife as an interim maintenance. However, the learned trial Court has interpreted the document as filed by the petitioner towards resignation tendered by him to the effect that the said certificate is one Relieving cum Experience Letter, but does not reveal about tender of resignation by the petitioner from his job. Hence, such Page 3 of 5 finding appears to be not on the basis of the admitted documents, to which the attention of the Court was invited, but merely because the resignation of the petitioner has not been appreciated by the learned trial Court, it cannot preclude the Court from further analyzing the evidence on record. It is also not in dispute that prior to the aforesaid fact of resignation of the petitioner from the Company, he was earning a net salary of Rs.67,964/- per month and at the same time, when a person was getting such a handsome salary would not remain jobless thereafter. Be that as it may, there is no dispute with regard to ability of the petitioner to earn by securing a job and the learned trial Court has not only taken note of the salary of the petitioner, but also taken into consideration the other factual aspect as stated in the affidavit of Assets and Liability. 9. This Court also reminds here the well- recognized principle of impermissibility of re- appreciation of evidence by revisional forum. Merely because the evidence suggests the possibility of a different view then that of taken by the learned trial Court, the revisional forum should not substitute its own view by resorting to re-appreciation of evidence. Further, the learned trial Court by the impugned order has directed the petitioner-husband to pay the aforesaid sum of Rs.10,000/- to the OP-wife as an interim maintenance till disposal of CP No.162/449 of Page 4 of 5 2021 and, thereby, it is not a final order. However, interest of justice can be best served, if the proceeding between the parties is culminated at the earliest. Since the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that the proceeding is now awaiting for cross- examination of OP-wife, the learned trial Court can proceed expeditiously to dispose of the matter, but this Court at this juncture is reluctant to interfere with the interim order as passed by the learned trial Court. However, the learned trial Court is also at liberty to alter or modify the quantum of interim maintenance, if any of the parties found guilty of protracting the litigation. In the result, this Court on conspectus of materials placed on record is not inclined to interfere with the interim order as passed by the learned trial Court. 10. Resultantly, the writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to costs. (G. Satapathy) Judge Subhasmita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 13-Nov-2024 11:25:38 Page 5 of 5