RAJA ROY AND Vs. DOLLY ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the parties and this common Judgment would abide the result in both the cases. - -

(2.) RAJA Roy is the husband, Dolly Roy @ Ray is the wife and Rasmita Roy is their nine years old child. Marriage between the spouses solemnized on 26.11.1995 entered into rough weather about a year after their marriage. Both the parties entered into litigating terms, for which several civil proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, criminal proceedings for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and also criminal prosecution for the offence under Section 498 -A, I.P.C. were instituted at the behest of the respective parties. Refusal of the Family Court, Rourkela to grant maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. in Criminal Proceeding No. 64 of 1997 were set aside by a Division Bench of this Court while hearing Matrimonial Appeal No. 5 of 1999 and Criminal Revision No. 257 of 1999 analogously. This Court allowed maintenance @ Rs. 1,500 (fifteen hundred) to the wife and daughter of Raja Roy, payable from the month of September, 2002. It was observed therein that it is open to the Appellant -wife to approach the Family Court for enhancement of maintenance in future depending upon the price index. It was also observed therein that in case of default in payment according to the mode indicated, it is open to the wife and the daughter to approach the employer of the husband to deduct the maintenance amount from the salary of the husband and remit the same to the wife and daughter. That Judgment was passed by the High Court on 16.09.2002. In 2005 the wife and the daughter filed application under Section 127, Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance, which was registered as Criminal Proceeding No. 52 of 2005 in the Family Court, Rourkela. The Family Court on 12.12.2006, allowed that application and directed the husband to pay a consolidated sum of Rs. 2,000 (two thousand) per month to the wife and daughter. That enhancement was made prospective from the date of order. Being aggrieved by that, the husband has filed RPF AM No. 8 of 2007 and the wife and daughter have filed RPF AM No. 20 of 2007.

(3.) AFTER arguing for sometime, Learned Counsel for the wife and the daughter (Petitioners in RPFAM No. 20 of 2007) states that in the meantime there has been hike in pay packets of the husband &, therefore, instead of pursuing the relief in this forum they would file further application for enhancement of maintenance, and accordingly they do not further pursue RPF AM as against the impugned order.