PRANABANDHU PAL ALIAS PAGAL Vs. MINATI MOHARANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Opposite Party filed an application claiming for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') and that was registered as Criminal Proceeding No. 368 of 1995 in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. She claimed maintenance from the petitioner on the grounds that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner and she was ill-treated and driven out by the petitioner. Opposite Party also claimed that she had no means to sustain her livelihood whereas the petitioner being a practising Advocate is capable of providing maintenance to her. While not disputing to the inter se relationship, petitioner alleged ill-treatment and cruelty on him by the opposite party, challenged her fidelity and also her voluntary disassociation from his society. Petitioner also contended that opposite party being an educated woman is capable of earning her bread and that she is earning by doing tuition and tailoring work. Accordingly he prayed to reject the prayer for maintenance. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective pleas and learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack on assessment of such evidence recorded the findings that opposite party has been ill-treated and deserted by the petitioner, she has no source of income and petitioner has sufficient means to provide maintenance besides being legally bound to do so. Accordingly he ordered for payment of monthly maintenance at the rate of 450/- with effect from 12-7-1995 (date of application).

(2.) While challenging the aforesaid findings and the order learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the evidence on record clearly proves that opposite party had conceived by the date of her marriage on 29-4-1994 and she did not co-operate for cohabitation with the petitioner and that she was found in objectionable condition with her cousin Kuna while the parties were staying first in a lodge and thereafter in a rented house in Cuttack town. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus argued that such factums having been proved by the petitioner it was not proper for the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to grant an order of maintenance in favour voluntarily dissociated herself from the society of the petitioner, therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance in view of the provision in Section 125(4) of the Code.

(3.) Learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the aforesaid allegation of adultery and pregnancy has not been proved by the petitioner and such plea is totally false and baseless. He further argued that the aforesaid allegation by themselves make out a case of cruelty and in addition to that opposite party and her mother as P.Ws. 1 and 2 have proved on record the demand of dowry by the petitioner and the ill-treatment meted to her by the petitioner at Cuttack. He further argued that there is absolutely no proof on record that the opposite party has any source of income or she has any income of her own. Under such circumstance, the impugned order of maintenance should not be disturbed.