Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 144 (ORI)

MANOJ KUMAR NAIK v. SANGEETA NAIK

2002-03-07

B.PANIGRAHI, M.PAPANNA

body2002
JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal is directed against the JUDGMENT dated 22.12.2000 in CPC No. 116/2000 passed by the learned Judge. Family Court, on an application filed by Respondent wife u/s 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, claiming maintenance. 2. The factual scenario as narrated in the judgment assailed before us is as follows: That a marriage was solemnized between the Appellant and the Respondent No. 1 on 24.4.1993 according to Vedic rituals in the parental house of Respondent No. 1. Both the parties are 'AGHARIA' by caste. Out of their wedlock Respondents 2 and 3 were born. After leading a happy conjugal life for sometime there was unhappiness and family dissension arisen between the spouses as a result of which Respondent No. 1 was driven out from the Appellants house. It is stated by the Respondent-wife that her father paid about Rs. 1,66,000/- to the Appellant on different dates asking both the spouses to lead a happy conjugal life. Notwithstanding Such payment, the position was deteriorated from bad to worse, a as a result of which Respondent No. 1 had to leave the matrimonial house - She had also claimed ill-treatment which resulted in bleeding Injuries. The Appellant allegedly forced Respondent No. 1 to give her consent for the second marriage to one Pankajini, a Hindi Teacher in 1989. On her refusal to give such consent, the Appellant was said to have collected a signature on a blank paper and thereafter she was assaulted black and blue. The physical torture escalated to such an extent that it became impossible to continue and lead a happy marital life. The Respondent-wife is said to have no other income and, therefore, solely depended upon the income of the Appellant. It is said that the Appellant is earning about Rs. 1.00.000/- annually from salary and the income from the landed property. 3. Both the parties were led to trial and placed evidence before the learned Judge, Family Court. The Appellant had admitted in the trial Court to pay Rs. 1000/- as maintenance to the wife as well as the children. Although the Respondent-wife had claimed that the Appellant demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- as dowry from the Respondent's father but we need not address on such point. (Sic) it to say that the Appellant is employed as a teacher and has been earning about Rs. 1000/- as maintenance to the wife as well as the children. Although the Respondent-wife had claimed that the Appellant demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- as dowry from the Respondent's father but we need not address on such point. (Sic) it to say that the Appellant is employed as a teacher and has been earning about Rs. 8000/- towards, his salary per month. We have also noticed that the Appellant in addition to his salary owned some land out of which it is normally expected that he must be deriving some income from i(t. 4. The learned Judge, Family Court has fixed Rs. 2600/-to pay the Respondent No. 1 per month. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has. however, argued with vehemence that such fixation of maintenance is not only excessive, exorbitent but also unworkable, inequitable and harsh inasmuch as there is evidence on record which would establish that the Appellant has been only receiving Rs. 3000/- as take home salary. So far the legal obligation of the Appellant is maintain the Respondents, there could be hardly any dispute. It is the legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife as well as off springs. In this background, we will have to find out as to whether the amount assessed by the learned Judge. Family Court was arbitrary, excessive and inequitable or not. From the salary certificate, we found that he has been deriving the gross-income about Rs. 8000/- per month out of which reasonable deduction should also be made. Notwithstanding such deduction the Appellant has to pay at least 1/5th of his income for maintenance to his wife. 5. Nonetheless, the husband may have other obligation to maintain his parents and also other dependants, if any, but at the same time he cannot avoid to maintain his wife as well as his children. The income from the agricultural land is always uncertain depending upon various factors. Therefore, there is no fixity of income from the agricultural land. We in order to meet the ends of justice determine the amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1600/- per month payable to Respondent No. 1 but in so far as the maintenance "awarded by the children, namely, Respondents 2 and 3, we found that the same has been reasonably fixed and there is no reason to interfere with such determination. 6. 1600/- per month payable to Respondent No. 1 but in so far as the maintenance "awarded by the children, namely, Respondents 2 and 3, we found that the same has been reasonably fixed and there is no reason to interfere with such determination. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed by directing the Appellant to pay Rs. 1600/- per month as maintenance to Respondent No. 1; Rs. 600/- per month to Respondent No. 2 and Rs. 300/- per month to Respondent No. 3, respectively. M. Papanna, J. 7. I agree.