BIKRAM RAY Vs. JEMA HEMBRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Revision, petitioner i.e. opposite party in C.M.C. No. 57 of 2001 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Karanjia has assailed the partly reversing judgment of the learned Adhoc Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Baripada in Criminal Revision No. 3/37 of 2005/04.

(2.) Succinctly stated, case of the petitioner No. 1 before the trial Court is that on 05.03.2000 as per caste custom, she married the opposite party i.e. the present petitioner and stayed with him for a period of seven to eight months in his house as his wife and out of their wedlock on 15.06.2001, she gave birth to petitioner No. 2. It is further alleged that after the birth of petitioner No. 2, her father i.e., the present petitioner and his family members started torturing petitioner No. 1 both mentally and physically and did not give her any food, cloth and medicine. Finally on 15.07.2001, he drove her away. Thereafter, she is staying in her parents' house along with her minor daughter. Her husband did not provide any maintenance to her or her minor daughter. Hence, she filed the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code" for brevity). Opposite party (present petitioner) i.e., the husband denied all the allegations made by the petitioner and further pleaded that petitioner No. 1 is the wife of one Tribeni Patra and petitioner No. 2 is the daughter of said Tribeni Patra. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the application.

(3.) Petitioners examined four witnesses on their behalf while the opposite party examined three. Learned trial Court has held that petitioner No. 1 is not the legally married wife of the opposite party. He came to such conclusion in view of the fact that on another occasion, petitioner has filed an application for maintenance against the said Tribeni Patra. She had also filed a complaint case against said Tribeni Patra. Disbelieving the birth certificate filed on behalf of the petitioner, learned trial Court has further held that the petitioners have not proved that the petitioner No. 2 is the daughter of the opposite party. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the application for maintenance.