1 Sep 2023 10:06 AM GMT
The Orissa High Court on Friday ordered a husband to pay eight months’ arrears of maintenance amount granted in favour of his wife and minor daughter, failing which he was warned to be taken into custody as per the procedure of law.The Single Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo was hearing a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioners who are the wife and daughter respectively...
The Orissa High Court on Friday ordered a husband to pay eight months’ arrears of maintenance amount granted in favour of his wife and minor daughter, failing which he was warned to be taken into custody as per the procedure of law.
The Single Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo was hearing a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioners who are the wife and daughter respectively of the opposite party.
The Court of Family Judge-II, Cuttack had ordered the opposite party to pay an interim maintenance of ₹4,000/- and ₹3,000/- respectively to the first and second petitioners under Section 125 CrPC on 05.01.2023 and had directed that the said amounts be paid to them from the date of order till disposal of case.
The petitioners approached the High Court impugning the order of the Family Court inasmuch as it ordered the opposite party to pay maintenance not from the ‘date of application’ but only from the ‘date of order’. They argued that such order goes against the decision of the Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha.
When the matter was posted before the High Court, it queried as to whether any maintenance amount has been paid to the petitioners at all. The counsel responded in negative. Thus, on 18.08.2023, the Court had ordered the Inspector-in-Charge of Mohana Police Station to produce the opposite party before it.
The IIC filed a report before the Court informing that though the police team had visited the house of the opposite party, he was not found there and he stated to have received information that opposite party is presently living in Mumbai.
In the first hour of hearing on Friday, the Court asked the counsel for the opposite party as to why his client has not paid even a single penny to his wife and daughter even though eight months have elapsed since the order of interim maintenance. The counsel assured the Court that the said amount will be paid.
However, being dissatisfied with such submission, the Court warned that it will be constrained to take the opposite party into custody if he does not comply with the impugned order. It also asked the counsel for the opposite party to inform his client to immediately pay the arrear amount to the tune of ₹56,000/- to the petitioners.
The matter was then passed over and was taken after around two hours. Justice Sahoo queried as to whether the opposite party has paid the amount in the meantime, to which his counsel replied in affirmative. On being asked, the first petitioner also informed the Court that her bank account has been credited with the sum.