Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Mamata Sahu And Another v. Sripati Mahana Opp. Party.

Orissa High Court

Apr 19, 2023

Judgment

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion arises from a challenge to an order dated 16 February 2023 passed by the Family Court, Balangir, in IA No. 18 of 2022, connected to CP (MAT) Case No. 9 of 2015. The Family Court granted an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, directing the Opposite Party to pay pendente lite maintenance of Rs. 4,000 per month to the Petitioners from the date of the application (14 September 2022), along with litigation expenses of Rs. 3,000. The Petitioners challenged this order by way of a writ petition.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the quantum of pendente lite maintenance awarded by the Family Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was appropriate and justified.
Whether the writ court should interfere with the Family Court’s order directing maintenance payments to the Petitioners.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

The Petitioner No. 1 is employed as an Anganwadi Worker earning Rs. 7,500 per month and is bearing the entire burden of maintenance and education of Petitioner No. 2, who is a student with no independent income.
The Opposite Party, husband of Petitioner No. 1, is employed as an Amin under the State Government with a gross salary of Rs. 46,099 and a take-home salary of Rs. 33,899 per month.
The Petitioners argued that they are entitled to an enhanced rate of pendente lite maintenance given the Opposite Party’s income and the expenses incurred, including Rs. 9,000 per month for Petitioner No. 2’s maintenance and tuition.
The impugned order’s maintenance amount was contended to be insufficient and thus warrants interference.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the provisions of Section 24 and Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, noting that Section 24 provides for pendente lite maintenance to a spouse, while minor children’s maintenance falls under Section 26. The Court observed that Petitioner No. 2 is 17 years old and nearing majority. The Opposite Party’s stated expenses from his salary include Rs. 30,000 per month covering medical expenses and maintenance of his mother and son. The Court emphasized the joint obligation of both parents to maintain their children.

On the quantum of maintenance, the Court acknowledged that there is no strict arithmetical formula and that courts must exercise discretion based on facts and circumstances. Considering the record and submissions, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Family Court’s order awarding Rs. 4,000 per month as pendente lite maintenance, even if it might be slightly higher than what might be calculated by re-appreciation of the evidence.

Holding and Implications

The writ petition is dismissed.

The Court upheld the Family Court’s order directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 4,000 per month as pendente lite maintenance to the Petitioners and litigation expenses of Rs. 3,000. The decision means the maintenance order stands as is, with no interference by the writ court. No new legal precedent was established by this ruling; it affirms the Family Court’s discretionary power in determining maintenance based on the facts of each case.

Show all summary ...

K.R. Mohapatra, J.:— Order dated 16 February, 2023 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Balangir in IA No. 18 of 2022 [arising out of CP (MAT) Case No. 9 of 2015] is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby learned Family Court allowing an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) directed the Opposite Party to pay pendente lite maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the Petitioners with effect from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 14 September, 2022 along with litigation expenses of Rs. 3,000/-.

2. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is an Anganwadi Worker and is getting Rs. 7,500/- per month as remuneration. Petitioner No. 2 is pursuing her study in +2 Arts. She has no independent source of income and the entire burden of her maintenance and education is being borne by Petitioner No. 1. The Opposite Party, who is the husband of Petitioner No. 1 is serving as an Amin under the State Government and his gross salary is Rs. 46,099/- per month and his take home salary is Rs. 33,899/- per month. Thus, the Petitioners are entitled to pendente lite maintenance at an enhanced rate.

3. It is his submission that the Petitioner No. 1 has to spent Rs. 9,000/- per month for maintenance of Petitioner No. 2 including tuition and other expenses. As such, the impugned order warrants interference.

4. Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioners, it appears that the provision under Section 24 of the Act has been made to provide pendente lite maintenance to a spouse. Minor children of the parties may get maintenance under Section 26 of the said Act. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the age of the Petitioner No. 2 is 17 years. Hence, she is approaching the age of majority. It further appears that out of the salary of Rs. 33,899/- per month, the Opposite Party stated to be spending Rs. 30,000/- including his medical expenses. He is also maintaining his mother and the son, who is living with him. It is the obligation/duty of both the parents to look after the children.

5. Considering the materials available on record, learned Judge, Family Court directed the Opposite Party to pay pendente lite maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the Petitioners. There cannot be any arithmetical calculation to determine the quantum of maintenance. The Court has to make a guess work for determination of quantum of maintenance considering the fact and circumstances of each case. Since taking into consideration the materials on record, learned Judge, Family Court, directed the Opposite party to pay pendente lite maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the Petitioners, I am not inclined to interfere with the same only because it may be slightly higher by re-appreciating the materials available on record.

6. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.