BENUDHAR JENA Vs. MINATI JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.4.2008 passed by the learned Judge, Family, Court, Rourkela in Civil Proceeding No. 229 of 2005 directing the appellant to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- to the respondent No. 1 and a further sum of No. 1,500/- towards maintenance to respondent No. 2 from the date of filing of the application.

(2.) The respondents filed an application before the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/ - from the appellant. The case of respondents is that respondent No. 1 married to the appellant on 22.7.1994 and a child (respondent No. 2) was born to them. After having a successful married life for almost nine years, some time in the year 2003 the appellant at the instigation of his mother started demanding a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for purchasing a car and due to non-payment of the said amount they started ill treating her and she was also subjected to assault. On one occasion respondent No. 1 was assaulted by the appellant for which she had to be admitted in Ispat General Hospital at Rourkela. On 31.3.2005 having been assaulted by the appellant, respondent No. 1 reported the incident in Mahila Police Station, Rourkela, but later on intervention of their friends, the matter was settled. However, even thereafter, the respondent No. 1 was subjected to misbehaviour and the appellant also developed extra-marital relationship with another woman, namely, Sasmita Rout residing in Sector-5 at Rourkela. For the above reasons, respondent No. 1 had no other option except staying away from the appellant alongwith her child. Their further case is that the appellant is drawing a salary of Rs. 15,000/- and, therefore, he is liable to pay maintenance to both the respondents at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month.

(3.) The appellant contested the case before the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela. He admitted the marriage and birth of respondent No. 2, but denied the allegation of demand of cash dowry and allegation of misbehaviour and cruelty as alleged in the petition. According to the appellant due to wrong advice given by the elder brother of respondent No. 1, she left his association and, therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance.