Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
D. Dash, J.
Paresh Kumar Parichha – Appellant
versus
Smt. Anita Kumari Parichha
and Anr. – Respondents
R.S.A. No.130 of 2014
Decided on 8.4.2021
For the Appellant:M/s. N.C. Pati, B. Pati, B. Das and B. Pati, Advocates
For the Respondents:M/s. S.D. Das, Sr. Advocate, M.M. Swain, S. Biswal, H.K. Behera and Haripad Mohanty, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Right of wife and daughter to get maintenance cannot be denied without any reason.
Headnote:
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 25 – Right of wife and daughter to get maintenance – Both Courts have taken note of fact that Petitioner No.1 is a practising Advocate at local Bar – It stands admitted that Petitioner No.2-daughter is staying with Petitioner No.1 and she is physically and mentally challenged – With a daughter like this at home, judicial notice of fact can well be taken as to how much time mother would have been able to leave her at home and divert time towards her professional activities as also with such prevailing tension and apprehension at home, attention towards professional work is hardly expected – Courts below having rendered concurrent finding on contentious factual aspects as are relevant for the purpose – Court finds no such illegality or infirmity therein – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 8 and 9)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
D. Dash, J.—The Appellant by filing this Appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called as ‘the Code’) has assailed the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2014 & 06.02.2014 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Gajapati in MAT Appeal Case No.04 of 2013.
2. By the said judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2013 and 30.04.2013 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Paralakhemundi in MAT Case No.25 of 2012.
The Respondents were the Petitioners in the original matrimonial case arising out of a petition under section 25 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act (HAMA) i.e. MJC no 16 of 2002, as also they are the Petitioners in the present MAT case no 25 of 2012 out of which the Appeal at hand arises. The present Appellant had been arraigned there in as the Respondent.
3. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the Trial Court i.e. the Respondent no 1 and 2 as the Petitioner no 1 and 2 respectively and the Appellant as the Respondent.
4. The Petitioner No.1 being the wife of the Respondent (Appellant) with her physically and mentally challenged minor daughter by representing her as the guardian ad litem had filed the original petition under section-25 of the HAMA, vide MJC no 25 of 2012, claiming maintenance form the Respondent as they being neglected and refused to be maintained by the Respondent had been compelled to have separate residence and stay under the mercy and care of others. The Court then by order dated 11.10.2002 in allowing the prayer had directed the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- per month towards the maintenance of both the Petitioners i.e. Rs.1000/- as maintenance per month to each. On 05.09.2012 i.e. after about a decade, the Petitioners presented another application under section-25 of the HAMA in seeking enhancement of the quantum of maintenance.
5. It is the case of the Petitioners that Respondent having neglected and refused to maintain them had deserted them wherein they had no contribution at all. It has been specifically stated that during pregnancy of Petitioner No.1, the Respondent made all sorts of attempt for abortion and having compelled her to consume poisonous drug she gave birth to a mentally and physically underdeveloped female child. The Petitioner No.1 and the mentally and physically challenged Petitioner No.2 were finally driven out of the matrimonial home for which they were forced to stay with the parents of Petitioner No.1 being burden on them. They have averred that since then the same state is continuing and as yet no good sense has prevailed upon the Respondent even to see them and take their care at any point of time. In view of long lapse of ten years, they thus laid the claim of enhancement of the monthly maintenance to Rs.5,000/- for the Petitioner No.1 and Rs.10,000/- for the Petitioner No.2.
6. The Respondent coming to contest the proceeding asserted that the Petitioners are not entitled to get the maintenance as claimed. According to him, there is no justification to enhance the monthly maintenance in terms of order dated 11.10.2002 passed in MJC No.16 of 2002. The Trial Court while not disturbing the earlier award of maintenance in favour of Petitioner No.1, has enhanced the quantum of maintenance to be paid to the Petitioner No.2 by Rs.5,000/- per month in addition to what had been awarded on the earlier occasion which thus comes to Rs.6,000/- per month.
The Respondent having carried the Appeal has failed. Thus, the present Second Appeal.
7. Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for the Appellant (Respondent) submits that on the face of the evidence that the Petitioner No.1 is a practicing Advocate and has income of her own, enhancement of quantum of maintenance to Rs.6,000/- per month for the Petitioner No.2 is not justified and the conclusio
