MITANJALI MOHANTY Vs. FANENDRA MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by learned Sub-Divisional -Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack (in short, the 'SDJM') rejecting petitioner's petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code'), is assailed in this revision application.

(2.) Facts situation as portrayed by the petitioner is to the following effect: According to Hindu rites and customs the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 were married on 15-2-1989. The opposite party No. 2 is the father of opposite party No. 1. A few days after marriage, both opposite parties and other members of their family treated the petitioner with cruelty, and on 19-3-1989 the opposite parties left the petitioner in the house of one Kanhu Charan who sent a telegram to the father of the petitioner which was received by the latter on 21-3-1989, whereafter the petitioner was brought back; and since 23-3-1989 she is continuing to live with her father. It is asserted that she had no source of income and that the opposite party No. 1 having sufficient means has neglected and / or refused to maintain her, and as such, she is entitled to an order under Section 125 of the Code. The application was resisted by the opposite parties, on the ground that there was no ill-treatment as alleged and on the contrary, she had volunterily withdrawn from the company of opposite party No.1 and therefore, an order under Section 125 of the Code is not available to be passed in her favour.

(3.) Petitioner examined herself as P.W. 1, while opposite party No. 1 examined himself as OPW 1 and the aforesaid Kanhu Charan was examined as OPW-2. The application was rejected by the learned SDDM, on the ground that there was no ill-treatment as alleged and that the petitioner was not entitled to maintenance as she has left the house of her husband without any reason or basis.