SANATAN BEHERA Vs. ANJALI BEHERA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite parties in this revision filed an application under Sec. 125, Code of Criminal Procedure registered as Criminal Proceeding No '55 of 1994 in the Court of Judge Family Court. Cuttack. They claimed that opposite party No. 1 and 2 are respectively wife and minor son of the petitioner. It is stated in the application under Sec. 125, Code of Criminal Procedure that opposite party No. 1 married to the petitioner in Maa Cuttack Chandi' temple at Cuttack in the month of December. 1991 and that marriage was performed by exchange of garlands in presence of the 'Purohit' (priest) and one 'Panda' ('Pujak') of the said temple. It is their further case that opposite party No. 1 and the petitioner resided in as rented house at Mangalabag (a locality in Cuttack Town) where the marriage was consummated and they were blessed with a child, i.e. opposite party No. 2. According to the Birth Certificate Ext. 2. opposite party No. 2 was born on 22.1.1993. It is alleged by the opposite parties that after the pregnancy of opposite party No. 1, petitioner extended both physical and mental cruelty and tortured her in pursuance to his demand of a cash of Rs. 20.000/ - (twenty thousand) towards dowry. Since her father was dead and one of the brother was invalid, therefore, she could not pay the said amount. Ultimately, on 1st October. 1992. as alleged, petitioner drove her out from the rented house and she met with one gentleman named Sec. Gopinathan on 1. 10.1992 and the said gentleman sent her to her parents' house on 2.10.1992. Because of the intervention of her brother and other gentleman of the Cuttack locality she again started staying with the petitioner from 5.10.1992 but she was again driven out on 10.12.1992. Opposite party No. 1 lodged F.I.R at the Mangalabag Police -Station or 11.10.1992 and also approached different authorities like D.I.G of Police, H.A. & D.D. Member -Secretary of the Legal Aid and Advice Board, and when she did not get any result then she filed the application for maintenance. She has stated that by the date of filing of the application under Sec. 125, Cr. P.C she was living in her parents' house in a destitute condition. She stated that petitioner as an Advocate of Cuttack Bar has a monthly earning of Rs. 3000/ - and he should provide maintenance of Rs. 500/ - to opposite party No. 1 and Rs. 300/ - to opposite party No. 2.

(2.) In this written statement petitioner disowned the relationship with opposite party No. 1 and also paternity of opposite party No. 2. While denying to the allegation made in the application under Sec. 125 Cr. P.C, petitioner specifically advanced the plea that on 4th March, 1991 he was married to one Lilena Rani Pradhan, daughter of Jagannath Pradhan (O.P.W. No. 4) of Cuttack and leading a happy conjugal life with her. He has further stated that opposite party No. 1 being a co -villager to him was found to be a lady of loose character and as she conceived and delivered a child in her spinsterhood, a village meeting was convened at the instance of the petitioners family to ex communicate or to drive her out from the village and since the petitioner was taking active part in that meeting, therefore, a false case has been foisted against him by opposite party No. 1. He has further stated that father of opposite party No. 1 died in the year 1987, her mother is getting family pension, her both the brother are having sufficient income and apart from that, opposite party No. 1 having taken a vocational training, is a skilled tailor and earns about Rs. 1500/ - per month from such avocation. He has stated that though he is a practising Advocate of the local Bar Cuttack but he joined the Bar in March, 1992 and he has no sufficient income from the profession even to meet his requirements in day -today life. He has further stated that father of opposite party No. 1 was a Government servant and was in occupation of a Government quarter at Ranihat (Anr. locality in Cuttack Town and opposite party No. 1 was staying with her father at Cuttack since 1982. and that after retirement of her father she returned to her native village but one year after she came and stayed in the quarter of her father's colleague. He has also narrated about the questionable character of opposite party No. 1 in the house of her father's friend Petitioners claim before the lower Court was to dismiss the application under Sec. 125 Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) In the Court below both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective cases. Opposite party No. 1 examined herself as P.W. 1. Besides that, she examined P.W. Nos. 2 and 3 as the witnesses to the marriage in 'Cuttack Chandi" temple and P.W. 4 as the priest who performed the marriage. Petitioner examined himself as O.P.W. 6. He examined the father of Lilenarani Pradhan as O.P.W. No. 4 to prove that he married to that girl on 4.3.1991. He has also examined O.P.W. Nos. 1 and 2 to prove that petitioner has married to said Lilenarani and not to opposite party No. 1. He also examined O.P.W. No. 3, a priest of 'Cuttack Chandi' temple, who, according to the opp party No. 1's case was present at the time of her marriage. By that witness he wanted to prove no marriage as alleged by the opposite party No. 1 So far as documentary evidence is concerned opposite party No. 1 relied on the Discharge certificate granted in her favour by the Medical Collage Hospital after her delivery. That discharge certificate dated 27.1.1993 has been marked Ext. 1. She has also relied on the Birth Certificate of opposite party No. 2 granted by the Registrar, Birth & Deaths. Cuttack Municipality on 23.2.1995 in proof of birth of opposite party No. 2 and he having been described as son of the petitioner. Similarly, petitioner also relied on some documents and they have been marked Ext. A to E. Out of that. Ext. A and 8 are respectively relevant entries in respective Registers relating to receipt of a tailoring machine and taking trailing in a tailoring institute at Cuttack by opposite party No. 1. describing herself as art unmarried woman. Ext C is a copy of invitation card relating to marriage of the petitioner with Lilenarani Pradhan on 4th March, 1991. Exts. E and D are respectively two water lists of village Govindpur relating to the year 1993 and 1995, in which opp. party No. 1 has been described water along with the other family members of her parents family and there she has been described as She daughter of her father and not as the wife of the petitioner.