RAHAS MOHAPATRA Vs. BALAKRUSHNA DASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission on consent of both the parties. The LCR being available and the present revision is against a case of refusal to grant maintenance in favour of the petitioner, therefore, parties wanted to address the Court in details both on facts and law as well as on the findings of the lower Court and therefore, while hearing argument in part yesterday order was passed to take up the further hearing today. Accordingly, both the parties having come ready, further argument in detail is heard from both the parties and the judgment is delivered in the following manner.

(2.) PETITIONER filed Criminal Proceeding No. 383 of 1997 in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, claiming for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. from the opposite party on the ground that she is the legally married wife of the opposite party. According to the case projected by her, she married to the opposite party on 21.4.1996 according to the social customs and Hindu rites at Puri and soon thereafter on the persuasion of the opposite party she undertook a Hotel Management Course at Bhubaneswar for a period of two months and thereafter in the month of July, 1996 when she returned to her matrimonial home, opposite party did not accept her as his wife and forcibly drove her away by use of force and by throwing her by the side of the road at Baramunda (a locality in the city of Bhubaneswar) with the help of his subordinate staff and domestic servant. She further narrated that, besides lodging FIR vide Lingaraj P.S. Case No. 18 of 1997 under Section 498A, IPC which corresponds to G. R. Case No. 508 of 1997 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, petitioner sought for the redressal under Section 125, Cr.P.C. on the ground of her destitute condition. Upon notice, the opposite party entered appearance and filed show -cause (written statement) denying to the marital relationship with the petitioner. On the other hand he stated that the petitioner was under his temporary employment in a 50 bedded Nursing Home which runs at Bhubaneswar, and during that period of employment petitioner's conduct was not found to be satisfactory and that, petitioner quietly walked away from that employment and after two months i.e. in the month of July, 1997, she appeared again and requested for re -employment but the opposite party refused and that was the starting point of dispute between the parties in which the petitioner has laid a false claim of marital relationship with him.

(3.) In view of the above dispute between the parties relating to marital relationship, Family Court recorded evidence produced by both the parties in support of their respective cases. Petitioner examined herself as P.W. No. 2 her brother Ranjan Kumar Mohapatra as P.W. No. 1 and four other persons as P.Ws. 3 to 6, namely Banabihari Dash (P.W. 3), Abhiram Barik (P.W. 4), Biranchi Narayan Sahoo (P.W. 5) and Bijay Kumar Das (P.W. 6). It be noted here that, when P.W. 6 could not be produced for cross -examination, his evidence was expunged. Opposite party examined himself as O.P.W. 3 and two persons working in the Nursing Home as O.P.Ws. 1 and 2, namely Santilata Sarangi (O.P.W. 1) and Laxmipriya Bitt (O.P.W. 2). Petitioner relied on Ext. 1 i.e., signature of the opposite party in a written submission to the Superintendent of Police, Bhubaneswar pleading about his innocency in connection with P.S. Case No. 18 of 1997. The opposite party relied on Exts. A and B series documents to show petitioner's employment under him and payment Of wages/salaries during the relevant period in the year 1996.