The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.1107 of 2020 Prafulla Kumar Patnaik …. Petitioner Mr. S. Sourav, Advocate -versus- 1. Nibedita Patnaik 2. Miss Bijaylaxmi Patnaik 3. Master Kamalakanta Patnaik …. Opp. Parties Mr. J.K. Mohapatra, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO Order No.
Decision
ORDER 17.03.2023 11. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. This CRLMP application has been filed by the petitioner Prafulla Kumar Patnaik challenging the order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur, Ganjam in Cr.P. No.118 of 2019. The opposite party no.1 Nibedita Patnaik is the wife, opposite party no.2 Miss Bijaylaxmi Patnaik is the daughter and opposite party no.3 Kamalakanta Patnaik is the son of the petitioner respectively. // 2 // The opposite parties filed a petition under section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur, Ganjam with a prayer for a direction to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand) per month to them towards interim maintenance till disposal of the original maintenance proceeding. It is the case of the opposite parties that the petitioner is a Government servant and he is working as Sanitary Inspector under Kukudakhandi P.H.C. in the district of Ganjam and is getting more than Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) per month towards his salary and the opposite parties are residing separately from the petitioner due to physical and mental torture of the petitioner towards them. It is the further case of the opposite parties that opposite party no.2 is prosecuting her study in Class-V and opposite party no.3 is prosecuting his study in Class-I in Nilakantha Nagar Sishu Mandir, Berhampur and the petitioner started ill-treatment to the opposite party no.1 and compelled her to demand a share out of the pensionary benefit of her father Narayan Patnaik in order to purchase a house in Berhampur Town. Since the opposite party no.1 objected the same, there was misunderstanding started between the parties and the opposite party no.1 was tortured and the petitioner did not perform the marital Page 2 of 6 // 3 // obligation and did not provide any money to the opposite parties even for the study expenses of the opposite parties nos.2 and 3. The petitioner filed objection to such interim maintenance application wherein it is stated that one Shakti Ranjan Patnaik @ Mantu was visiting the house of the petitioner frequently and after his frequent visit, the opposite party no.1 showing indifferent attitude to the petitioner and the opposite party no.1 was not listening to the request of the petitioner not to allow the said Shakti Ranjan Patnaik to come to his house and she started ill-treatment to the petitioner and neglected him in day-to-day matrimonial relationship. The learned Judge, Family Court considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and taking into account the income of the petitioner and the bare requirement of the opposite parties for survival has been pleased to hold that the opposite parties are entitled to get interim maintenance from the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- (rupees twenty one thousand) per month to the opposite parties i.e. @ Rs.7,000/- (rupees seven thousand) to each of the opposite parties towards the interim maintenance from the date of filing of the interim application i.e. 10.05.2019 till final disposal of the case. It was further directed to the petitioner to Page 3 of 6 // 4 // pay the arrear interim maintenance to the opposite parties within three months and the current interim maintenance amount to be paid by second week of each succeeding English Calendar month positively without fail. When the matter was taken up on 28.09.2020, this Court while issuing notice to the opposite parties, as an interim measure, directed that there shall be stay of operation of the order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur in Cr.P. No.118 of 2019 subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) per month to the opposite parties. Mr. S. Sourav, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is regularly paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) per month to the opposite parties as per the order dated 28.09.2020 and there is no default on his part. Learned counsel for the opposite parties also does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that opposite party no.1 is living in adultery and therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the petitioner or any interim maintenance in view of sub-section (4) of section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is not disputed that the recording of evidence Page 4 of 6 // 5 // in the main proceeding is under progress in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur and the stand taken by the petitioner relating to living in adultery of the opposite party no.1 is to be proved in accordance with law and the learned Judge, Family Court shall decide such aspect. It would not be proper at this stage to give any findings in that respect which will prejudice either of the parties. Taking into account the price rise and the cost of living and the fact that the opposite parties nos.2 and 3 are prosecuting their studies, I am of the view that the order of interim maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- (rupees seven thousand), which has been directed to be paid to each of the opposite party cannot be said under any stretch of the imagination in the higher side and therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur, Ganjam. The balance amount as per the impugned order shall be deposited by end of April, 2023 which shall be disbursed to the opposite parties. The learned Judge, Family Court shall expedite the adjudication of the main proceeding and try to conclude the same by the end of July, 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that apart from Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) as per the order dated 28.09.2020, the petitioner has Page 5 of 6 // 6 // made some extra payment towards maintenance of the opposite parties. If an application is made by the petitioner to that effect and the documentary evidence is produced, the learned Judge, Family Court shall take into account the same in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the opposite parties. Accordingly, the CRLMP is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) RKM Page 6 of 6