Back
1995 Supreme(Ori) 81
High Court Of Orissa
ARIJIT PASAYAT
MINATI BINATI NAYAK - Appellant
Versus
GOURANGA CHARAN NAYAK - Respondent
Criminal Revision 534 Of 1994
Decided On : 04/20/1995
D.MAHAPATRA, D.PATRA, NEROD SAHU, S.KUMAR, Uma
The main legal point established is the requirement for a reasoned basis for fixing the quantum of maintenance, considering the means of the party liable to pay and preventing luxury living or impeding future reconciliation.
Headnote:
MAINTENANCE - Family Court Order - The court vacated the order for lump sum payment and directed the Family Court to hear the matter afresh only on the question of quantum, emphasizing the need for a reasoned basis for fixing the maintenance amount and considering the means of the party liable to pay.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the legality of the Family Court's order granting maintenance of Rs. 150.00, arguing that it was unreasoned and did not indicate any basis for fixing the quantum at a lower amount than claimed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the order unreasoned and unsupported by any provision of the statute, vacating the order for lump sum payment and directing the Family Court to reconsider the quantum of maintenance.
Issues: The issue was the legality of the unreasoned maintenance order and the lack of basis for fixing the quantum at a lower amount than claimed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a reasoned basis for fixing the maintenance amount, considering the means of the party liable to pay, and preventing the maintenance amount from enabling luxury living or impeding future reconciliation.
Final Decision: The application was allowed, and the order for lump sum payment was vacated, with directions for the Family Court to hear the matter afresh only on the question of quantum.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
( 1 ) :- Heard learned counsel for petitioner and opposite party.
( 2 ) PETITIONER calls in question legality of the order 12-7-1994, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, granting maintenance of Rs. 150. 00 to the petitioner from the date of order. Alternatively the opposite party was directed to pay lump sum of Rs. 12,500. 00 within six months.
( 3 ) GRIEVANCE of the petitioner in this revision application is that the aforesaid order is unreasoned, and even no basis has been indicated by the learned Judge Family Court for fixing the quantum at Rs. 150. 00 when the claim was for Rs. 400. 00. While fixing the quantum of maintenance, the concerned Court is required to indicate the basis for fixing the quantum at a particular amount. The maximum amount is prescribed in the statute. There must be some reasonable basis for fixing the quantum. Main factor is the income of the person liable to pay. An unreasoned order is practically no order in the eye of law. In fixing the quantum the necessities to be provided to the claimant and the means of the opposite party are to be considered. It cannot be fixed on some hypothesis or abstract consideration.
( 4 ) SECTION 125 is enacted only to save starving children, parents and wives. The object of the summary proceedings given in the Code for maintenance is to prevent vagrancy and that object is achieved by directing provisions of loading, food and clothing to the wife, the children are minor or the parents, as the case may be. The Magistrate while fixing the quantum has to strike a balance. He should not fix an amount which would enable the wife to live in luxury, and also impede any future reconciliation, and penuriousness.
( 5 ) IN the case at hand, the children for lump sum payment is not supported by any provision of the statute. The order is accordingly vacated. The learned Judge, Family Court shall hear the matter afresh only on the question of quantum. The application is accordingly allowed. Sd. A. Pasayat. Application allowed.
