Goldy Rani Rout v. Sujit Kumar Sahoo Opp. Party.

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

2. Order dated 17 November, 2022 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur in I.A. No. 41 of 2021 (arising out of Civil Proceeding No. 327 of 2021) is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby allowing an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (For brevity ‘the Act’), the Opposite Party has been directed to pay pendente lite maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the Petitioner from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 27 February, 2021 together with Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Opposite Party is an Electrical Engineer and is working under ONGC. He is drawing a salary of more than Rs. 1,50,000/- per month. Thus, taking into consideration the status, Petitioner would have maintained with the Opposite Party, pendente lite maintenance at a higher rate should have been granted. He, therefore, prays for a direction to enhance the quantum of pendente lite maintenance granted in the impugned order.

4. Considering the submission made by Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it appears that the Petitioner is in receipt of Rs. 5,000/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs. 1500/- per month as house rent in a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in DV Case No. 40 of 2021. Thus, learned Judge, Family Court taking into consideration the ratio decided in Rajnesh v. Neha reported in Crl. Appeal No. 730 of 2020 SC directed to pay the aforesaid amount as pendente lite maintenance. There is also nothing on record to show that the Opposite Party is drawing a salary of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month, as alleged. Thus, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.