Orissa High Court
Uttam Kumar Nayak And Another vs Sitasatee Nayak And Another .... Opp. ... on 4 July, 2023
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM NO.62 OF 2023
Uttam Kumar Nayak and another .... Petitioners
Mr. Manoj Bihari Das,
Advocate
-versus-
Sitasatee Nayak and another .... Opp. Parties
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 04.07.2023 1. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Judgment dated 19th January, 2023 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak in criminal Proceeding No.166 of 2021 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner No.1 has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month and Petitioner No.2 has been directed to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No.1 from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., from 10th August, 2021.
3. It is submitted by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioners are sons of Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 is in receipt of the family pension of her husband. She also receives the usufructs from the Bhag- tenants from the land recorded in the name of her husband. The Petitioners do not have sufficient income to pay the maintenance as directed. It is submitted that due to a dissension between the Petitioners and other two brothers, application under Section 125 Page 1 of 3 // 2 // Cr.P.C. has been filed at their instance. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order.
4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the evidence of the Opposite Party No.1 in which she admitted that she is receiving Rs.1,000/- per month towards family pension and is also in receipt of the usufructs from the bhag- tenants. It is submitted that this aspect was not considered by the Family Court. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable.
5. Considering the submission made by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner and perusal of record, it appears that the Opposite Party No.1 is in receipt of family pension of Rs.1,000/- per month. It also appears that the Petitioner received usufructs from the bhag-tenants. But the value of the usufructs has neither been suggested nor any material is available on record in that regard. Admittedly, the Petitioners are sons of Opposite No.1. It appears that Petitioner No.1 is working as Senior Manager at Jaribahal Iron Mines, Keshab International Private Limited, Joda and is earning 1,50,000/- per month. It appears that the Petitioner No.2 is earning Rs.20,000/- per month from private tuitions. Since they are the sons of Opposite Party No.1, they are under legal obligation to maintain their mother. Family Pension of Rs.1000/- per month is certainly not sufficient for maintenance of Opposite Party No.1. Petitioner No.1 has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month only to the Opposite Party No.1 and the Petitioner No.2 has been directed to pay a maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the Opposite Page 2 of 3 // 3 // Party No1. The same does not appear to be unreasonable. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
6. Accordingly, the RPFAM being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Rojalin Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 05-Jul-2023 10:25:38
Page 3 of 3