The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 3864 OF 2022 Nihar Ranjan Ray …. Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Advocate Petitioner -versus- Ananya Routray and another …. Opp. Parties Mr. Chintu Kumar Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Das, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 08.02.2023 21. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Order dated 15th December, 2021 (Annexure-1) passed in I.A. No.52 of 2021 (arising out of C.P. No.468 of 2021) is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack entertaining an application filed by Opposite Parties under Section 151 C.P.C., directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance to the Opposite Party No.1-wife and Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the Opposite Party No.2-daughter along with her study expenses of Rs.7,000/- per month through Opposite Party No.1 from the date of application, i.e. 27th July, 2021. 3. Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is in contractual job under World Health Organization (WHO) and has received a gross amount of Rs.14,09,922/- from July, 2021 to December, 2021 @ Rs.2,34,987/- per month (consolidated). The Petitioner is not in Page 1 of 6 // 2 // a permanent job of WHO. All the professional expenses have to be borne by him. On the other hand, the Opposite Party No.1 is a legal practitioner and has her own income. Suppressing that, an application under Section 151 C.P.C. was filed for interim maintenance in a proceeding under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 in C.P. No.468 of 2021. Learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack only on surmises and conjectures passed the impugned order. 3.1 He further submits that pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Petitioner has filed an additional affidavit stating his income and professional as well as personal expenses. Although disclosure affidavit in terms of the guidelines of Rajnesh –v- Neha and another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, has not been filed by the Petitioner, but he has filed an affidavit disclosing his income before learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. Without considering the same, the impugned order has been passed. He further submits that the Petitioner has no grievance to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the Opposite Party No.2, his daughter as well as her study expenses of Rs.7,000/- per month as directed. In fact, he is paying the same regularly. Over and above the same, the Petitioner is also paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No.1-wife without prejudice to his case. It his submission that the Opposite Party No.1 is not entitled to any maintenance as she has her own income, which she has suppressed. In that view of the matter, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and to remit the matter back to the Family Court, Cuttack for fresh Page 2 of 6 // 3 // consideration giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 4. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties being authorized by Mr. B.P. Das, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that the Petitioner has suppressed material facts. He has never disclosed his nature of engagement with WHO. Referring to the Staff Regulation and Staff Rules of World Health Organization, he submits that the Petitioner must be in pay roll of WHO. But, with an ulterior motive, he has not filed his salary certificate although directed by this Court vide order dated 23rd March, 2022. It is his submission that the Opposite Party No.1 was with the Petitioner till July, 2021. Thus, it was too late on her part to resume her professional career or to earn her livelihood. The Petitioner has already filed disclosure affidavit in terms of the guidelines of Rajnesh (supra) before learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. 5. It is further submitted that taking into consideration the status, the Opposite Party No.1 was enjoying with the Petitioner, quantum of maintenance directed to be paid to the Opposite Party No.1 appears to be reasonable. Hence, it requires no interference. In the petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) in C.P. No.468 of 2021 filed by the Petitioner, he has disclosed his income at Rs.2,46,000/- per month. Hence, the impugned order warrants no interference. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the Petitioner pursuant to the direction of this Court has filed an affidavit on Page 3 of 6 // 4 // 11th April, 2022 stating that his income was Rs.2,34,987/- per month on an average from July, 2021 to December, 2021. He has also stated his professional as well as personal expenses in the said affidavit. It is stated that the Petitioner has to bear his professional expenses from the money he receives from WHO. The Petitioner has also disclosed the tax paid by him on his income. Although no objection to the said affidavit has been filed, but the Opposite Party No.1 has filed I.A. No.4840 of 2022 seeking for a direction to call for the documents with regard to the salary particulars of the Petitioner from his employer. 7. It is submitted by Mr. Bose, learned counsel that the Petitioner has no grievance with regard to the direction to pay maintenance as well as study expenses to his daughter-Opposite Party No.2. Hence, this Court does not interfere with the direction of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack so far as it relates to payment of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No.2 through Opposite Party No.1 along with study expenses of Rs.7,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No.2 through Opposite Party No.1. 8. The only issue that requires consideration is with regard to quantum of maintenance directed to be paid to the Opposite Party No.1-wife. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that in absence of any material, learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack made a guess work with regard to income of the Petitioner and passed the impugned order. Since some materials with regard to the income of the Petitioner have been produced before this Court, it is felt necessary that learned Judge, Family Page 4 of 6 // 5 // Court, Cuttack should reconsider the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid to the Opposite Party No.1-wife. 9. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack observed that the Petitioner has stated his gross annual income to be Rs.11,84,910/- and net annual income to be Rs.9,94,240/-. Regarding assets of the Petitioner, learned Judge, Family Court observed that he has landed properties at Godisahi, Cuttack and Sarkantara, Damduma. The Petitioner has also admitted that he has owned a single flat in Apartment at Gudiapokari, Pipili. Although learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack has discussed about the statement of the Petitioner with regard to his gross income, but did not arrive at a finding as to net income of the Petitioner to be taken into consideration for payment of maintenance to the Opposite Party No.1 after the statutory deduction as well as his professional/personal expenses. Since some materials are placed before this Court with regard to his income in terms of the affidavit filed by the Petitioner, this Court feels that the matter should be considered afresh. 10 Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside so far as direction to pay maintenance to the Opposite Party No.1 and the matter is remitted back to the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack for fresh adjudication on the issue of quantum of maintenance to be paid to the Opposite Party No.1. 11. It is made clear that the Petitioner shall go on paying a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) per month to the Opposite Party No.1-wife till disposal of I.A. No.52 of 2021 in Page 5 of 6 // 6 // accordance with law, which shall be without prejudice to the case of either of the parties. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. bks (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Page 6 of 6