BAIKUNTHANATH BEHERA Vs. SMT. SASHIKALA BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above two appeals arise out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No.38 of 2003 and Civil Proceeding No.413 of 2003 disposed of in a common judgment. Respondent no. 1 is wife of the appellant in both the appeals. Respondent no. 2 is daughter of both the appellant and respondent no. 1. The marriage between both the appellant and respondent no. 1 on 26.5.1996 and birth of respondent no. 2 are admitted.

(2.) Respondents filed Civil Proceeding No.38 of 2003 under Sections 17 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 claiming maintenance of Rs. 7,500/- per month whereas appellant filed Civil Proceeding No.413 of 2003 under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage. Respondent No.1 in Civil Proceeding No.38 of 2003 stated that at the time of marriage, cash, ornaments and other articles were given as dowry as per demand of the appellant. After marriage, both the appellant and respondent stayed in the house of the appellant at Kujanga. During their stay at Kujanga, she was misbehaved by in-laws. The appellant thereafter took her to Tata where he was serving as a Driver in the Eastern Railway on 11.11.1996 and stayed in a rented house for some days. The appellant thereafter started demanding cash of Rs. 50,000/- and when she expressed her inability to fulfill the said demand, she was ill-treated and subjected to torture physically and mentally by the appellant. On some occasions, she was also assaulted by the appellant for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. At that point of time she was carrying. Ultimately on 19.9.1997 she was driven out from the house of the appellant with a direction to bring Rs. 50,000/-. During her stay in her parent's house, respondent No.2 was born on 17.5.1998. Though the appellant came to see the daughter, he did not pay any money for her treatment. When the appellant refused to take her back on the ground of non-fulfillment of dowry demand, she reported the matter to the Women Commission, Orissa, Bhubaneswar. In order to escape from criminal liability, the appellant filed a compromise petition before the Women Commission in September 1999 and took her to his village at Kujanga. There also she was again subjected to cruelty by in-laws as well as the appellant, as a result of the above ill-treatment, she again came back to her father's house. Only on 1.4.2000 the appellant again took her and the daughter to Tata assuring good behaviour. After some days, he again started assaulting her and on one occasion, she suffered severe injuries. She therefore lodged an F.I.R. and the matter was compromised. Again after some time she was mercilessly assaulted by the appellant on 26.8.2002 and again another F.I.R. was lodged by her in Chakradharpur Police Station. The appellant was arrested and forwarded to custody. When the appellant was in custody, she left the quarter at Chakradharpur along with her brother and started staying in her parent's house. According to respondent No.1, the appellant gets salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month and has got 10 acres of agricultural land, out of which, he earns about Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum towards his share. On these allegations, she claimed monthly maintenance of Rs. 7,500/- for self and the minor daughter.

(3.) In reply to her allegations, the appellant submitted that three days after the marriage, he detected a letter sent by a paramour of respondent No.1 and when she was confronted with the letter, she became furious, took away the letter and did not talk with him for three days. During their stay at Chakradharpur, it is alleged by he appellant that respondent No.1 developed friendship with a lady named Burnelly Chakrabarthy and started visiting her house. She also started moving around with the lover of Burnelly Chakrabarthy in the park. When the appellant objected he was threatened. The appellant also alleged that respondent No.1 in his absence was going outside with others even at late night. The allegation of respondent No.1 is that the appellant did not bear the expenses of birth of the child has been denied. Several allegations have also been made by the appellant with regard to character of respondent No.1. It was specifically pleaded by the appellant that on 17.8.2002 at night when he returned from duty, she asked him to get some cosmetics. When he said that he was feeling tired, she became furious and threatened him. The appellant therefore went to one of his friend's house and stayed there. Respondent No.1 thereafter contacted the local police and lodged an F.I.R. on false allegation, as a result of which, on 26.8.2002 he and his friend were arrested. Taking advantage of confinement of the appellant in judicial custody, respondent No.1, her mother and brother took away all the articles including cash, educational certificate, L.I.C. certificate, passbook etc. of the appellant. The appellant was released on bail on 1.11.2002 and found that all the articles and other documents as stated above have been taken away by respondent No.1. These are the allegations on the basis of which, the appellant also filed Civil Proceeding for divorce and the defence taken by respondent No.1 in the divorce proceeding is the same as that of the allegations made by her in the application filed for maintenance.