IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RPFAM No.123 of 2023 (In the matter of application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act).

Alaka Rani Behera … Petitioner -versus-

Basudev Behera … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. P. Mohanty, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.K. Saa, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. T.K. Sahu, Advocate CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:29.01.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This revision is directed the impugned judgment dated 05.01.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Sonepur in Criminal Proceeding No.06 of 2022 directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand) per month to the petitioner towards her maintenance in an application U/S.125 of the CrPC.

2. Heard, Mr. Pulakesh Mohanty, learned proxy counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Amit Kumar Saa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tirth Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the OP and perused the record.

3. While proceeding to address the contention of the parties, this Court, however, makes it clear that the relationship between the parties is not in dispute, but the quantum of maintenance is challenged by the petitioner in this revision. It is also not in dispute that the OP is a Government teacher and is earning handsome amount, but his monthly income out of salary has been assessed at Rs.1,05,415/- in the month of March, 2022. However, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment has directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand) per month, but such order has been passed without elaborating the requirements/needs, responsibility and liabilities of the parties. It is also not in dispute that the son of the parties admittedly resides with OP-father so also the mother of the OP. It is of course argued and submitted that since the mother of the OP is a pension holder, the petitioner may not be shouldering the responsibility of her maintenance. Be that as it may, since the mother of the OP is admittedly found to be drawing pension of Rs.13,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand) per month, it may not be sufficient for her maintenance and she has to depend on the income of her son for further need like medicine, food, shelter etc. and the same has to be considered commensurate to the standard of living of her own son. At the same time, the petitioner-wife’s needs has to be considered commensurate to the standard of living of her husband and in this case, it is not in dispute that the husband is drawing a gross salary of more than Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) and there is prospect of his salary revision in future, but taking into account the present day market index of living, particularly the cost of living and the entitlement of the wife to live commensurate to the standard of living of her husband, it would be just and proper, if the maintenance as granted to the petitioner-wife is enhanced by Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) after taking note of the present day market index and the cost of living of a person of a stature of the petitioner.

4. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed on contest, but in the circumstances, there no order as to costs. Accordingly, the OP-husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs.18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand) per month to the wife-petitioner with effect from the date of filing of the maintenance application i.e. 22.02.2022. The modified amount of current monthly maintenance be paid to the petitioner-wife regularly, but the arrear that would accrue on account of enhancing the maintenance w.e.f. 22.02.2022 be paid to the petitioner- wife in two equal installments payable on 1^st March, 2025 and 1^st May, 2025.

(G. Satapathy)

Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenograp her Reason: Authentication

Location: High Court of Oris sa

Date: 30-Jan-2025 18:12:22

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

Dated the 29^th day of January, 2025/Subhasmita