KHIRODINI AND ORS. Vs. DINAMANI SUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B.K. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the sole opposite party.

(2.) This CMP has been filed assailing the order dated 30.01.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Padampur in disposal of the Interim Application No. 02/04 of 2012-13 arising out of Matrimonial Appeal No. 01/98 of 2012-13.

(3.) Short fact as borne out from the case record is that in the application under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at the instance of the husband (present opposite party) for divorce, the wife as opposite party filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 151 of CPC claiming a sum of Rs. 4000/- each as interim maintenance per month in favour of both mother and child, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards litigation expenses and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to meet medical and educational expenses for the child (present petitioner No. 2). In filing the application, the wife has submitted that she is residing separate from the husband and the petitioner No. 2 i.e. minor child is also prosecuting his study in class-II in Aurobindo Sikhya Kendra, Padampur. In making the claim, the wife has submitted that her husband is working as a Govt., teacher and drawing salary of Rs. 16,740/- per month and apart from salary he is also getting some other benefits from the agricultural sources out of the land belonging to him as well as his family. She has also admitted that she is working as a Mini Anganwadi Worker on honorarium basis. In response to which the husband-opposite party filed an application inter alia contending therein that in view of limitation of criminal case against the husband under Section 498(A) of IPC and Section 4 of the DP. Act, the opposite party-husband was arrested and forwarded to jail custody on 28.02.2009. He was released on 07.03.2009 by virtue of an order passed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Padampur in Bail Application No. 67 of 2009. So far as the income from agricultural sources, the husband (O.P.) denied to have receiving any amount on account of the same and submitted that he depends only on his remuneration.