KABITA SAHOO Vs. DHIRENDRA BEJE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this RPFAM challenging the order dated 2.2.2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Criminal Proceeding No.751 of 2002.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present case are as follows: The petitioner filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. taking a plea that she had married to the opposite party on 16.5.2000 after the death of his wife Sukanti. Prior to her marriage, she was working as a maid servant for her livelihood in the house of one Ajodhya Pradhan, a constable of Tangi Police Station in the year 2000. After her marriage, she lived with the opposite party as his wife. A few days after marriage, opposite party assaulted her without any reason. On 31.8.2001, he drove her out of his house forcibly for which she had lodged an FIR on 23.2.2002 at Tangi Police Station but the police did not take any action. As she had no income, she was leading a miserable life at her father's house. Her parents have died. Since she has no income and the opposite party, who is working as a Head Clerk in Tangi College, having sufficient means neglected to maintain her, she claimed maintenance from him for her sustenance. The opposite party filed his show -cause asserting that their had been no marriage between him and the petitioner. He also denied any relationship between him and the petitioner. Further, he stated that the petitioner is living with Ajodhya Pradhan and she is also working in the house of the opposite party for her sustenance. On the ill -advice of Ajodhya, she filed the aforesaid application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming monthly maintenance of Rs. 1000/ - from the opposite party. He further asserted that he is serving as a Clerk in Tangi College and getting a salary of Rs. 4932/ -. Since the petitioner was working as a maid servant in his house, he made final payment of Rs. 3000/ - to her and she also gave a receipt to that effect. The opposite party is living with his mother, brother and daughter. The petitioner had married to one Madhaba Samal and she was living with him for sometimes. Thereafter, she engaged herself as maid servant in same houses to earn money far better life. He being a widower, an the ill -advice of the locality, she filed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with a view to getting same money from him an a false plea. On the above pleadings, the parties led oral evidence. While the opposite party filed documentary evidence, the petitioner did not file any. She examined herself as P.W.1 but did not examine any other witness. The opposite party examined three witnesses including himself as OPW No.1 and filed the money receipt given by the petitioner showing, receipt of Rs. 3000/ - towards monthly payment far the work she rendered in the house of the opposite party as a maid servant. Learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties, discarded the claim of the petitioner that she married the opposite party in a Temple in the absence of any corroborative evidence an the record and came to the conclusion that the opposite party has proved that he has paid Rs. 3000/ - vide Ext.A towards remuneration of the petitioner for the work rendered by her as a maid servant which has been corroborated by OPW Na.3. Since the petitioner was not able to prove that she is the married wife of the opposite party, she is not entitled to maintenance. On the above findings, the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack dismissed the aforesaid application of the petitioner without casts.

(3.) LEARNED counsel far the apposite party submitted that there was no. marriage between the opposite party and the petitioner and the petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence to prove the marriage. Accordingly, the Family Court, Cuttack, after taking into consideration all the materials available on record, has rightly rejected the prayer far maintenance of the petitioner on contest. Therefore, she should not be permitted to adduce any further evidence to fill up the lacuna as she had sufficient opportunity to prove all those facts but she failed to do so. Further, the photograph filed by the petitioner vide Annexure -1 is not acceptable as the same was neither filed nor proved before the Family Court. Therefore, this RPFAM is liable to be dismissed.