The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RPFAM NO.195 of 2024 (An application U/S. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984). Jiten Kumar Ray @ Roy … Petitioner -versus- Subhashree Subhasmita … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. B.C. Parija, Advocate For Opposite Party : Ms. D. Dhall, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:30.04.2025(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This revision is directed against the impugned judgment dated 22.01.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Nayagarh in Crl.M.P. No. 201 of 2022 directing the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to OP-wife w.e.f. 05.11.2022 towards her monthly maintenance in an application U/S.125 of CrPC. 2. Facts not in dispute are that the petitioner and the OP are related to each other as husband and RPFAM No.195 of 2024 Page 1 of 9 wife and their marriage was solemnized on 24.05.2021, but due to some dissention, the OP-wife started living separately from her husband in her paternal home and thereafter, she filed an application U/S.125 of CrPC against the petitioner-husband for grant of maintenance which came to be registered in
Facts
Crl.M.P. No. 201 of 2022. Accordingly, both the parties filed their disclosure affidavit stating therein their assets and liabilities. Further, the learned trial Court allowed both the parties to lead evidence and the petitioner-husband examined himself only and exhibited three documents under Ext. A to Ext. B/a as against the oral evidence of the OP-wife and one Gouri Dei as PWs.1 & 2, but no documentary evidence has been led by the OP-wife. 3. On conclusion of the hearing, the learned trial Court upon analysis of evidence has passed the impugned judgment directing the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- to OP-wife towards her maintenance. Being aggrieved with the quantum of RPFAM No.195 of 2024 Page 2 of 9 maintenance, the petitioner-husband has preferred this revision. 4.
Legal Reasoning
After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, this Court finds the learned trial Court to have analyzed the evidence and passed the impugned order and, in such order, the learned trial Court has inter alia taken into consideration the avocation and income of both the parties in paragraph 18 which reads as under:- “18. On the basis of the discussion above and on perusing the asset and liability statement of both petitioner and OP which was filed by them on 16.1.2023 and 22.7.2023 it is evident that the OP Jiten Kumar Roy is a business man and in his asset and liability statement he has shown RPFAM No.195 of 2024 Page 4 of 9 He that stated that he has a Paint Shop at Rajsunakhala and he is the sole proprietor of that paint shop which employees two persons and he has also stated in his asset and liability statement about his annual turn over that of being Rs.5,07,015/- and his gross profit is Rs.4,94,515/- and his net income is Rs.2,31,345/- and he also pays income tax of Rs.lOOO/- and he has also shown his monthly expenditure to be Rs.21,930/- per month. his education/qualification to be a +2 Science and he claims that his wife possessed the degree of of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed). Compare to this the asset and liability statement of the petitioner Subhashree Subhasmita who has stated her educational qualification to be +3 and that the occupation of her husband she has shown to be business. She has started that her monthly expenditure is Rs.40,000/- which is much more than that of her OP husband. She has remained silent about her additional qualifications that of BCA and B.Ed. She stated the educational qualification of her husband to be a Graduate. On such asset and liability statements one thing is emerging that both side have tried to suppress certain things and divulged a little true facts about their actual expenditures. Therefore, not much can be relied on such asset and liability statements furnished by both the parties. It is also evident that and consistent that the marital life between the petitioner and the OP ran into trouble very soon after their marriage. The cause attributed by the petitioner is demand for dowry by the OP and his family members and she being treated unfairly due to her black complexion by the OP and his family members. The OP on the other hand has stated that his wife has voluntarily left his house and she is not entitled to any maintenance. The OP has produced some proof that the petitioner has qualified and in gainfully employed as a Master Book Keeper under a Grampanchayat. The OP has produced some RPFAM No.195 of 2024 Page 5 of 9 Book under including the Right Keeper(MBK) documents obtained under to Information Act from the Public Information Officer cum Addl. B.D.O. Bhapur that the petitioner Subhasree Subhasmita has secured highest mark among the candidates for the the Master Baghuapalli Panchayat (Ext.A). The OP has not produced any document that the petitioner has joined in that post. Some evident is there that the petitioner is qualified as a Master Book Keeper at village-Baghuapalli. This OP claims that he borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from his mother in law(PW-2). He also produced his account statements of State Bank of India, Sagargaon Branch Ext.B and Ext.B/a that an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- has been deducted from his bank account in payment of that loan amount interest remitted to the petitioner and her mother. It is not clear why a business man will borrow money from his in laws when the OP has a good income out of his business of a hardware and colour shop. In para-17 of the cross examination of OPW-1 in which he has admitted that his mother in law has filed a complaint petition u/s 138 of the N.I.Act in 1CC case No. 62 of 2022 before the Court of SDJM., Nayagarh. It is not clear if the claim of the OP is that he has repaid the entire debt which he has availed from his mother in law then why a case u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is filed against him by his own is some mother subsisting debt which this OP allegedly owes to his mother in law which is to be proved or enforced in the court of law. So the OP trying to give a colour that he has borrowed money and returned with interest to his mother in law and petitioner wife is not of much value to him when he is facing criminal prosecution for a debt and bouncing of cheque under the Negotiable Instrument Act. It is evident that some financial loss allegedly has been caused by the OP in terms of money to the mother of the petitioner law. Obviously, there in RPFAM No.195 of 2024 Page 6 of 9 and for that a Complaint case has been instituted by her (P.W.2) against her own son in law (OP) by her. 6. On a careful scrutiny of the aforesaid observation of the learned trial Court, it goes without saying that the net monthly income of the petitioner comes around Rs.20,000/- which is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but the fact needs to be considered is the education and qualification of the OP-wife, who has also prospect to earn because she is admittedly having qualification of B.A. B.Ed. It is, however, claimed by the petitioner- husband that the OP-wife was gainfully employed as Master Book Keeper (MBK), but the documents which he has produced before the learned trial Court only shows the marks secured by the OP-wife for the post of Master Book Keeper (MBK), but there is absolutely no evidence to come to a conclusion that the OP-wife is gainfully employed as Master Book Keeper (MBK). 6. Further, the petitioner-husband has not made it clear as to whether such post of Master Book Keeper (MBK) is a permanent post and is on the pay roll of the RPFAM No.195 of 2024 Page 7 of 9 Government. On the contrary, it is an established fact that the petitioner is a businessman and earns his livelihood from the paint shop. According to his own disclosure affidavit of the assets and liabilities, his annual turnover from business is Rs.5,07,000/- and some odd and out of that, he earns gross profit of Rs.4,94,000/- and some odd, but he claims that he is also spending some money on his dependant parents and towards the salary of the employees employed in his shop. Be that as it may, the wife is entitled in law to be maintained by her husband, unless her conduct excludes out of the purview to get maintenance in terms of Section 125(4) of CrPC, but that is neither an issue in this case nor any pleading or evidence has been led to suggest that the OP-wife is not entitled to any maintenance in view of the provision of Section 125(4) of CrPC and therefore, the OP-wife being an unemployed lady and although she having prospect to earn, this Court considers that she is entitled to be maintained on the standard commensurate to the RPFAM No.195 of 2024 Page 8 of 9 standard of living of her husband and therefore, awarding a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the OP-wife is not excessive or exorbitant and the same is in consonance with facts and law. 7. In the result, the revision being devoid of merit, stands dismissed, but in the circumstance, there
Arguments
In the course of hearing, Mr. Bikash Chandra Parija, learned counsel for the petitioner-husband while not disputing the relationship between the parties, however, seriously assails the quantum of maintenance as ordered by the learned trial Court by inter alia contending that although the petitioner’s income is found to be around Rs.20,000/- per month and that of the OP-wife is to some extent by way of her employment as Master Book Keeper (MBK), but ignoring such fact, the learned trial Court has passed the impugned judgment without taking into consideration the income of the OP-wife and thereby, the quantum of maintenance as ordered by the learned trial Court needs to be modified. Mr. Parija accordingly, prays to reduce the quantum of maintenance from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.4,000/-. 4.1. On the other hand, Ms. Dipti Dhall, learned counsel for the OP-wife, however, seriously submits RPFAM No.195 of 2024 Page 3 of 9 that not only the petitioner-husband has failed to prove the income of the OP-wife, but also the OP-wife in fact is not gainfully employed in any of the organization and drawing any monthly salary to maintain herself and she, thereby, depending on the income of her mother as her father had already died around three years back, the quantum of maintenance as awarded to the OP-wife by the learned trial Court is just and proper and needs no interference. Accordingly, Ms. Dhall prays to dismiss the revision. 5.
Decision
is no order as to costs. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 30th day of April, 2025/S.Sasmal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-May-2025 12:04:17 RPFAM No.195 of 2024 Page 9 of 9