HEMANTA KUMAR RAY Vs. ROMANI DAS

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Judgment dtd. 16/8/2023 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur in Criminal Proceeding No.268 of 2019 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000.00per month to the Opposite Party No.1 (wife) and Rs.10,000.00 per month to the Opposite Party No.2 (minor son) from the date of filing of the application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C., i.e., 9/12/2019.

(3.) Ms. Naidu, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that relationship between the parties is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the Petitioner is working as Senior Geologist in ONGC and posted at Ahemadabad. The Opposite Party No.1 is also highly qualified lady. Monthly gross salary of the Petitioner at the relevant time was Rs.1,95,633.00. After deduction, take home salary of the Petitioner was Rs.50,793.00 per month. The Petitioner is serving at Ahemadabad, where the cost of living is very high. Though the Opposite Party No.1 is a working lady, but unfortunately the Petitioner could not lead evidence to that effect as he could not collect material to that effect. The Petitioner has other responsibilities to discharge. Civil Proceeding No. 279 of 2021 filed by the Petitioner is pending before learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur under Sec. 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') seeking for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce with the Opposite Party No.1. In the said proceeding, learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur vide order dtd. 3/1/2023 directed the Petitioner to pay pendente lite maintenance of Rs.12,000.00 per month to the Opposite Party No.1-wife. Of course, said order is under challenge in W.P.(C) No.6877 of 2023, which is sub-judice before this Court. The Opposite Party No.1 did not disclose the same before learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur during adjudication of the petition under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. Learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur has also not justified in granting maintenance of Rs.15,000.00 per month to the Opposite Party No.1, who is a highly qualified lady and Rs.10,000.00 per month to the Opposite Party No.2, who is a minor child of three years only. Thus, the matter requires fresh consideration.