Mausumi @ Mousumi Mohanty v. Saroj Pattnaik

ORDER 02.03.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Judgment dated 24th December, 2022 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Phulbani in C.R.P. No. 80 of 2021 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Opposite Party has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the Petitioner from the date of application, 25th October, 2021.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that although the Opposite Party is working as a postal agent and is earning in lakhs, a meager amount of Rs.3,000/- was directed to be paid as maintenance. It is his submission that the document with regard to the income of Opposite Party was also produced by the Petitioner before learned Judge, Family Court, Phulbani, which was not taken into consideration. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and to remit the matter back to the learned Judge, Family Court, Phulbani for fresh adjudication of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and enhancement of the quantum of maintenance. // 2 //

Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it appears that no material with regard to the income of Opposite Party is available on record. However, learned Judge, Family Court, Phulbani taking into consideration that the Opposite Party is working in a agency made a guess work and assessed his income to be Rs.10,000/- per month. On the other hand, the salary slip of the Petitioner (Ext.3) has been filed, which discloses that the Petitioner is working as a teacher and is earning approximately Rs.7,000/- per month. Thus, considering the income of both the parties and their need & personal expenses, learned Judge, Family Court, Phulbani directed the Opposite Party to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the Petitioner.

In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned order.

At this stage, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for withdrawal of RPFAM.