KANHU CHARAN JENA Vs. NIRMALA JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these cases have been filed by the husband challenging the legality of the order of maintenance passed in favour of the wife. The opposite party had filed an application under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate after negativing the plea of the husband and accepting the plea of the wife directed for payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of the order. Against the aforesaid order, the present opposite party filed Criminal Revision No. 25/98 before the Sessions Judge, Khurda, mainly on the ground that the Magistrate should have directed for payment of maintenance from the date of application and not from the date of the order. The aforesaid contention was accepted by the Sessions Judge, who directed that such maintenance should be paid from the date of the application. This order is being challenged in Criminal Misc. Case No. 451/99. The husband has also filed connected Criminal Revision No. 385/98 challenging the order of the Magistrate directing payment of maintenance. In the said revision, it is contended that no maintenance should have been directed to be paid and, at any rate, payment of Rupees 500/- per month appears to be excessive.

(2.) In the objection before the Magistrate, the husband had alleged that the wife was living in adultery. However, the Magistrate on discussion of materials on record has discarded such a plea of the husband. The learned Magistrate has considered the relevant materials on record to come to the conclusion that the wife is entitled to get maintenance. I hardly find any reason to interfere with such finding of the Magistrate.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that payment of Rs. 500/- per month appears to be excessive. It is not disputed that the husband is working as a Senior Wireman under the Orissa Mining Corporation, Bhubaneswar. In his objection he had stated that he was drawing a salary of Rs. 3,500/-. But according to the evidence adduced on behalf of the wife, the husband was getting higher salary. Even assuming that the husband was receiving a salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month, payment of Rupees 500/- per month towards maintenance cannot be characterized as excessively high so as to warrant interference in revision.