CHANDRA SEKHAR CHINARA Vs. NALINIPRAVA SAHU ALIAS CHINARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 01.10.2012 passed by the learned Judge. Family Court, Khurda in Criminal Petition No.254 of 2011 under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enhancing the monthly maintenance in favour of the opposite parties respectively to Rs.3500/- and Rs.4000/-, is the subject matter of challenge in this revision.

(2.) The petitioner is admittedly the husband of opposite party No.l and father of opposite party No.2. In Criminal Misc. Case No.69 of 2003 filed by the opposite parties under section 125, Cr.P.C, the J.M.F.C, Khurda by his order dated 26.06.2004 awarded monthly maintenance to both the opposite parties at the rate of Rs.400/- and Rs.300/- respectively. In Civil Proceeding (CMA No.09 of 2004) arising out of MAT Case No.45 of 2003 the Civil Judge (Senior Division) had awarded interim maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month in favour of the present opposite parties. Order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. under section 125, Cr.P.C. was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Criminal Revision No.511 of 2004. This court stayed the order of maintenance subject to payment of Rs.1000/- per month as directed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). The said order of stay was subsequently vacated and the revision also ultimately got dismissed.

(3.) The opposite parties filed Cri. Petition No.254 of 2011 under section 127, Cr.P.C. claiming enhanced maintenance of Rs. 15,000/-for each of the opposite parties on the ground of price rise and financial difficulties faced by the opposite parties to meet their bare necessities of life. It was claimed by them that they have got no source of income in managing their livelihood and for the study of opposite party No.2. It was also claimed that opposite party No.l was suffering from several ailments and money was also necessary for her treatment. They claimed that the present petitioner is working as a distributor of Britinia Company, a Surveyor in Proctor and Gamble, besides having a jewellery shop and doing share trading business. Apart from denying the assertions of the opposite parties, the petitioner took the stand that opposite party No.l has a monthly earning of Rs. 15,000/- and that the petitioner earns only Rs.3,000/- as a Salesman in Nivedita Enterprises, Jatni.