The main legal point established is that evidence of employment and suppressed income can influence the court's decision on maintenance claims.

JUDGMENT

Biswanath Rath, J. - This case involves a challenge to the order dated 06.06.2019 and the subsequent order 24.08.2019 dated passed by the Judge, Family Court, Balasore in original case as well as execution case respectively.

2. Cr.P.No. 32 of 2016 involves a claim at the instance of the wife for grant of monthly maintenance of Rs.60,000/- for the grounds involved therein that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 11.02.2008 following the Hindu rites and rituals. It is alleged that the family members of the husband being not satisfied with the articles asked the wife involved herein to bring more money to met with dowry demand, In the process, they have started harassment to the petitioner mentally and physically . For some time wife accompanied with the husband to his place of working at Delhi but there also she was subjected to harassment even after giving birth to a son. During stay at Delhi, ill-treatment to the wife did not end. The wife even asked to sale the land available in her village to meet with the demand of the husband. It is further disclosed that when the wife was returning from Delhi with her husband, the husband attempted to kill her by pushing her down from the running train. Passengers traveling in the train rescued her but the opposite party-husband went away and escaped from the spot. Finding no reply from the side of the husband and no interest being shown from the husband to take up, the petitioner came back to her father's house. In the meantime family members of the husband on 17.12.2015 reached the house of the father of the petitioner and forcibly took the child to their custody compelling the wife to lead a life of destitute. On the premises that the husband was working in a Software company is earning Rs.80,000/- per month besides further earning a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- per annum from the cultivable land to the extent of 10 acres and that the mother of the husband was also getting Rs.10,000/- per month as pension, the wife got constrained to file both the cases claiming monthly maintenance @ Rs.60,000/- per month. The present opposite party-husband appeared and filed his objection resisting of the claim at the instance of the wife and disclosed that for the pendency of a PWDV Act case, present litigation is not maintainable. It was also further pleaded by way of objection of the husband that the wife since was working as a Teacher under Sarva Sikya Abhijan, which itself is sufficient to maintain the wife. Husband also disputed the wife's claim on husband's income and contended that the husband rather working as a Labourer in New Delhi and is earning paltry sum of Rs.15,000/-. It is in the above premises, the husband resisted the claim of the wife.

3. Basing on the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:

i) Whether the petition filed claiming maintenance is maintainable?

ii) Whether the petitioner has just cause of action to file the petition?

iii) Whether the petitioner-wife having no source of income has reasons to stay away from the O.P. and is liable to be maintained by him?

iv) Whether the O.P. having sufficient means neglected or refused to maintain the petitioner and as such liable to maintain her and if liable, what would be quantum of maintenance?

v) To what other relief(s) the petitioner is entitled for?"

Hearing the parties Family Court finally decided the matter on contest by passing the following order:

"Petition claiming monthly maintenance as filed by the petitioner is allowed on contest against the O.P. He is directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) to the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition on dtd. 20.01.2016. The current maintenance amount is to be paid within the first week of the English Calendar month. The arrear maintenance occurring till date is to be paid in instalments within three months, failing which petitioner is to realize the same through the process of the Court."

4. After final disposal of