SUSMITA ACHARYA Vs. RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of a common order and the judgment passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and also under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.

(2.) The appellant is the wife of the respondent-husband in both the appeals one against the order refusing maintenance to her and the other against the order granting divorce by snapping the marital tie between both the spouses. The appellant married the respondent according to the Hindu rites and customs prevalent in the society on 7-3-1988 and after such solemnisation of marriage it was consummated immediately thereafter. Out of their lawful wed-lock a female child was born. The respondent-husband was working as a Doctor and is also continuing as such in S.C.B. Medical College at the moment. Immediately after the marriage, they could not lead a happy conjugal life, as there was frequent dissension, dispute and bitterness between both the spouses. According to the appellant there was unabated torture and ill treatment on her as a result of which it was impossible to continue in the matrimonial house, and later on she was forced to come back to her parents_s house with female child sometimes in the year 1993. The respondent husband on the other hand had filed an application for granting divorce before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack on the ground of wilful desertion and cruelty by the appellant. It is stated by the respondent-husband that the appellant being self employed after obtaining M. FIL degree and has been practising as an Advocate, therefore there is no need to provide maintenance to her.

(3.) The learned Judge, Family Court on an elaborate resume of the evidence granted a decree of divorce by snapping the marital tie between both the spouses and also directed maintenance @ Rs. 500/- to the minor female child till her marriage. Therefore, being aggrieved by the observation of the learned Judge, Family Court, the wife has filed both the aforesaid appeals.