LAWS(ORI)-2001-11-10

SARADA MAJHI Vs. SANJAYA MAJHI

Decided On November 05, 2001
Sarada Majhi Appellant
V/S
Sanjaya Majhi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 18.11.1999 of the S.D.J.M., Angul in Crl. Misc. Case No. 51 of 1998 is under challenge in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'the Code')

(2.) A brief sketch of the relevant facts and circumstances is relevant to consider the grievance of the petitioner. In that respect petitioner's contention is that she is the wife of the opposite party. When the opposite party refused to maintain her, she filed an application under Section 125 of the Code registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 11 of 1991 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Angul. On 13.1.1994 that application was allowed by granting her maintenance @ Rs. 500/ - per month making it payable from the date of institution of the proceeding i.e., 25.1.1991. Petitioner filed application for realisation of the arrear maintenance, registered as Crl. Misc. Case No. 75 of 1994. In that application she claimed for realisation of arrear maintenance from January, 1991 to January, 1994. In the meantime opposite party filed Crl. Revision No. 24 of 1994 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal Learned Sessions Judge directed the opposite party to pay Rs, 4,000/ - to the petitioner. On 2.7.1995 learned Sessions Judge dismissed that criminal revision and as against that the opposite party filed an application under Section 482 of the Code in this Court, registered as Crl. Misc. Case No. 2651 of 1995. As an interim measure, this Court directed the opposite party to pay monthly maintenance @ Rs. 300/ -. Accordingly the opposite party paid Rs. 5,100/ - covering a period of 17 months from August, 1996 to December, 1997, and thereafter also paid maintenance @ Rs. 300/ - till July, 1998. On 8.3.1998 the application under Section 482 of the Code was disposed of by reducing the quantum of maintenance to Rs. 450/ - per month and as stated by the petitioner and not disputed by the opposite party in that respect, the following order was passed by this Court :

(3.) IN the impugned order, learned S.D.J.M. has noted that :