RASMITA ROUT ALIAS BARAL Vs. MAHESWAR BARAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri B. P. Routray for the petitioners and Shri Ajit Hota for the opposite patty. This writ application is directed against the order of the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, 6xing Rs. 300/ - as monthly interim maintenance payable to the petitioners. Even though it is not indicated in the impugned order that interim maintenance claimed is for the wife and two minor children, it is obvious that maintenance had been claimed for the three petitioners.

(2.) THE Judge, Family Court, had passed the following order : - -

(3.) IN course of hearing, Shri Hota appearing for the opposite party has produced the salary certificate for the month of September, 2000, which indicates that the basic pay of the opposite party was Rs. 5,250/ - and Dearness Allowance payable was Rs. 1,943/ - and house rent allowance payable was Rs. 525/ -. In other words, the gross earning was Rs. 7,718 -00 per month. However, after deduction of various amounts towards loan, et cetera, the net amount payable appears to be Rs. 2,737/ -, The counsel for the opposite party has also stated that the opposite patty has to maintain other persons.