SUJATA SAHOO Vs. THAKAMANA PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have called in question the legality, propriety and validity of the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Civil Proceeding No. 20 of 1997 dated 2nd November, 1998 whereby he directed that the appellant No. 2 shall be maintained by the respondent -husband whereas appellant No. 3 shall be maintained by appellant No.1 and the claim for maintenance by appellant No.1 was rejected.

(2.) MARRIAGE between appellant No. 1 and the respondent was solemnised on 14.7.83 according to Mitakshara Hindu Law and customs prevalent in the society. Out of their wedlock appellants 2 and 3 were born on 27.3.85 and 5.6.89 respectively. The relationship between appellant No. 1 and the respondent did not continue well as a result of which there was always frequent quarrel, dissension and unhappiness in the family. The respondent did not take any care of the appellants and deserted them. Appellant No. 2 was reading in Sainik School, Bhubaneswar in class v when the application was filed before the learned Judge, Family Court but in fact, after completion of education there, he is continuing his studies at Sambalpur. Similarly the appellant No. 3 is reading in Class VIII in Sambalpur. The respondent was directed to meet the maintenance as well as educational expenses of appellant No. 2 whereas appellant No. 1 was directed to meet the expenses of appellant No. 3.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that both appellant No. 1 and the respondent are employed and earning to meet their own expenditure. Therefore, the learned Judge. Family Court was justified in refusing the maintenance claimed by appellant No. 1. But we are unable to understand how the learned Judge. Family Court directed the educational expenditure of appellant No. 3 to be borne by appellant No. 1 only without taking the fact situation into consideration as to what is the income of appellant No.1 and whether out of that income can she be able to meet such expenditure. Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that appellants No. 1 is working as a teacher under a Government Scheme arid hardly earning about Rs.3000/ - per month out of which it would be difficult to maintain herself and to meet the expenditure of her daughter appellant No. 3. The respondent is working as a Junior Engineer under the Project Administrator. I.T.D.A. Panposh and his salary must be around Rs. 7000/ - per month. Mr. R.N. Mohanty has fairly submitted that his client cannot avoid to meet the educational expenditure and maintenance of appellants 2 and 3. But during the period in which appellant No. 2 was reading in Sainik School, Bhubaneswar the expenditure was more in comparison with the expenditure for the studies now he has undertaken. Appellant No. 3 is only reading in Class VIII, therefore, her expenditure also may not be much. Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has strongly contended that appellant No.1 is incurring an expenditure of around Rs. 1400/ - per month only towards the school fee and the tuition fee of appellant No. 2 besides his maintenance and the school fee of appellant No. 3 is about Rs. 300/ -. Therefore, the educational expenditure of both appellants Nos.2 and 3 comes around Rs. 1700/ - per month, besides, their maintenance and clothing.