SATISH KUMAR PAL Vs. MITALI MADHUSMITA SAHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

(2.) Judgment dtd. 29/3/2022 (Annexure-7) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal in Cr.P. No.78 of 2019 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.12,000.00 per month to Opposite Party No.2 (minor son) from the date of filing of the application.

(3.) Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the relationship between the parties is not disputed. The parties were staying at their place of service in Bangalore along with their minor child. Opposite Party No.1 with a plea to visit her parents, left Bangalore with their minor son-Opposite Party No.2 and did not return thereafter. As such, the Petitioner has filed an application under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties filed an application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. (Cr.P. No.78 of 2019) claiming maintenance. Learned Judge, Family Court while refusing the prayer for grant of maintenance in favour of Opposite Party No.1-Wife directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.12,000.00 per month to Opposite Party No.2, as maintenance. It is his submission that the Opposite Party No.1 is a working lady, as has been observed by learned Judge, Family Court in the impugned order under Annexure-7. There is also no material on record to show that the Petitioner has ever neglected to maintain Opposite Party No.2. It is the Opposite Party No.1, who is keeping Opposite Party No.2 away from the Petitioner. Since the Opposite Party No.1 is income tax assessee and has sufficient means to maintain herself, both of them have equal responsibility and obligation to maintain their minor son, namely, Opposite Party No.2. This material aspect was lost sight of by learned Judge, Family Court while assessing the quantum of maintenance. It is also submitted that while assessing the quantum of maintenance, learned Judge, Family Court did not record the income of the Petitioner as well as his expenses. In that view of the matter, the quantum of maintenance appears to be unreasonable and warrants interference.