Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 751 (ORI)

Sujata Sahoo v. Thakamana Pradhan

2002-11-21

B.PANIGRAHI, P.K.MISRA

body2002
JUDGMENT B. PANIGRAHI, J. — The appellants have called in question the legality, propriety and validity of the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Civil Proceeding No. 20 of 1997 dated 2nd November, 1998 whereby he directed that the appellant No.2 shall be maintained by the respondent-husband whereas appellant No.3 shall be maintained by appellant No.1 and the claim for maintenance by appellant No.1 was rejected. 2. Marriage between appellant No.1 and the respondent was solemnised on 14.7.83 according to Mitakshara Hindu Law and customs prevalent in the society. Out of their wedlock appellants 2 and 3 were born on 27.3.85 and 5.6.89 respectively. The rela¬tionship between appellant No.1 and the respondent did not con¬tinue well as a result of which there was always frequent quar¬rel, dissension and unhappiness in the family. The respondent did not take any care of the appellants and deserted them. Appellant No.2 was reading in Sainik School, Bhubaneswar in class v when the application was filed before the learned Judge, Family Court, but in fact, after completion of education there, he is continu¬ing his studies at Sambalpur. Similarly the appellant No. 3 is reading in Class VIII in Sambalpur. The respondent was directed to meet the maintenance as well as educational expenses of appel¬lant No.2 whereas appellant No.1 was directed to meet the ex¬penses of appellant No. 3. 3. Even after such direction the respondent did not meet any expenditure incurred during the continuance of appellant No.2’s studies in Sainik School, Bhubaneswar. But Mr. R.N. Mohan¬ty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that about Rs.2,00,000/- was sent to Sanik School, Bhubaneswar for prosecuting studies of appellant No.2. Be that as it may, since appellant No.2 has already completed his studies at Bhuba¬neswar, it is no longer necessary to enter into such discussion regarding the liability of the respondent for meeting such ex¬penditure. 4. It is not in dispute that both appellant No.1 and the respondent are employed and earning to meet their own expendi¬ture. Therefore, the learned Judge, Family Court was justified in refusing the maintenance claimed by appellant No.1. 4. It is not in dispute that both appellant No.1 and the respondent are employed and earning to meet their own expendi¬ture. Therefore, the learned Judge, Family Court was justified in refusing the maintenance claimed by appellant No.1. But we are unable to understand how the learned Judge, Family Court directed the educational expenditure of appellant No.3 to be borne by appellant No.1 only without taking the fact situation into con¬sideration as to what is the income of appellant No.1 and whether out of that income can she be able to meet such expenditure. Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that appellants No.1 is working as a teacher under a Government Scheme and hardly earning about Rs.3000/- per month out of which it would be difficult to maintain herself and to meet the expenditure of her daughter appellant No.3. The respond¬ent is working as a Junior Engineer under the Project Adminis¬trator, I.T.D.A., Panposh and his salary must be around Rs. 7000/- per month. Mr. R.N. Mohanty has fairly submitted that his client cannot avoid to meet the educational expenditure and maintenance of appellants 2 and 3. But during the period in which appellant No.2 was reading in Sainik School, Bhubaneswar the expenditure was more in comparison with the expenditure for the studies now he has undertaken. Appellant No.3 is only reading in Class VIII, therefore, her expenditure also may not be much. Mr. R.K. Mohan¬ty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has strongly contended that appellant No.1 is incurring an expenditure of around Rs. 1400/- per month only towards the school fee and the tuition fee of appellant No.2 besides his maintenance and the school fee of appellant No.3 is about Rs. 300/-. Therefore, the educational expenditure of both appellants Nos.2 and 3 comes around Rs. 1700/- per month, besides, their maintenance and clothing. 5. While considering the amount of maintenance payable by the father the Court should not be oblivious to the income de¬rived from the salary and also the economic condition of the family. The respondent is working as a Junior Engineer. He has obligation to maintain his children besides the expenditure for the education of respondents Nos.2 and 3. In the aforesaid cir¬cumstances, taking the salary of the respondent into considera¬tion, we feel it just and proper to direct the respondent to pay Rs. The respondent is working as a Junior Engineer. He has obligation to maintain his children besides the expenditure for the education of respondents Nos.2 and 3. In the aforesaid cir¬cumstances, taking the salary of the respondent into considera¬tion, we feel it just and proper to direct the respondent to pay Rs. 1400/- per month as maintenance which will commence from the month of December,2002 payable in the 1st week of January, 2003 and he shall continue to pay month by month by the 1st week of each succeeding month. The Project Administrator, I.T.D.A., Panposh under whom the respondent is presently working is hereby directed to deduct the maintenance amount as indicated above month by month commencing from the salary of December, 2002 payable in January, 2003 at the rate of Rs. 1400/- per month and send it to appellant No.1 in her Sambalpur address. So far as the arrear maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month is con¬cerned, we have already directed him to deduct from the salary of the respondent and pay it to appellant No.1. If it has not al¬ready been deducted and paid to appellant No.1, he is directed to carry out the order of this Court and report compliance within eight weeks to this Court. We make it further clear that if in future there is any necessity of enhancement to meet the expenses for the higher studies of appellants 2 and 3, it would be open for appellant No.1 to approach the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela for such enhancement. With the above direction the appeal is disposed of. CH. P.K. MISRA, J. I agree. Appeal disposed of.