Mitrabasu Swain And Others v. Indubhusan Das And Others Opp. Party.

K.R. Mohapatra, J.:— This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Order dated 19 January, 2023 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur in C.P. No. 195 of 2021 is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby allowing an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Opposite Party has been directed to pay pendente lite maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to Petitioner No. 1-Wife from the date of filing of the application, i.e., from 12 October, 2022 along with litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-.

3. Miss Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Opposite Party is serving as Senior Technician, Grade-I in IFFCO, Paradeep and his gross salary is Rs. 1,34,240/- per month. The Petitioner No. 1 does not have any independent source of income. Two minor children are staying with her. Thus, it is impossible on the part of Petitioner No. 1 to maintain herself along with two minor children, one of whom is school going, with a meager maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month, more particularly, when the gross salary of the Opposite Party is Rs. 1,34,240/- per month. She, therefore, prays for enhancement of the amount of pendente lite maintenance by modifying the impugned order under Annexure-5.

4. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the gross salary of the Opposite Party is Rs. 1,34,240/- per month. In a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for brevity ‘DV Act’), learned Judge, Family Court has directed to pay pendente lite maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to Petitioner No. 1 over and above the amount of maintenance granted under the DV Act keeping in mind the cost of living and that two minor children are staying with her.

5. There cannot be any arithmetical calculation of quantum of maintenance. The Court while considering the application for maintenance has to make a guess work depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. It may not be as expected by the applicant. There might be a little variation to her expectation. In the instant case, considering the fact that the gross salary of the Opposite Party is Rs. 1,34,240/- per month and the Petitioner No. 1 has already been awarded maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month in a proceeding under the DV Act, learned Judge, Family Court directed the Opposite Party to pay a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as pendente lite maintenance. As there is no flagrant miscarriage of justice in assessing the quantum of pendente lite maintenance and there being no allegation with regard to non-consideration of material fact, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under Annexure-5.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

7. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.