RADHAMOHAN BEHERA Vs. GYANASHYAM BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present RPFAM by the petitioner is directed against the impugned judgment dtd. 28/8/2023 passed in Criminal Petition No.217 of 2022 by which the learned Judge, Family Court, Khurda on analysis of evidence on record has directed the revisional petitioner-cum-son to pay a sum of Rs.3,000.00 per month to OPNo.1-cum-father. In addition, the learned Judge, Family Court, Khurda has also directed OPNos.2 to 4-cum-other sons to pay a sum of Rs.1,500.00 each per month to OPNo.1-cumfather.

(2.) In assailing the aforesaid impugned judgment, Mr. Brundaban Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has discriminated while granting maintenance to OPNo.1- cum-father by issuing a direction to the present petitioner to pay Rs.3,000.00 per month as against the direction of Rs.1,500.00 per month to the other three sons of the petitioner and, thereby, the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered with. Mr. Rout, accordingly, prays to reduce the quantum of maintenance.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Saroj Kumar Dash, learned counsel for OPNos.1 to 3, however, strongly, opposes such prayer of the petitioner by inter-alia contending that the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality by directing the petitioner to pay Rs.3,000.00 per month by taking into account his income from the profession of running a grocery shop in the village.