LAWS(ORI)-2003-12-37

SMITARANI MOHANTY Vs. SURESH KUMAR MOHANTY

Decided On December 03, 2003
Smitarani Mohanty Appellant
V/S
Suresh Kumar Mohanty Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed challenging the order dated 18.9.2001 passed by the learned Ad -hoc Addl.Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, In Crl.Revision No.60/9/34 of 2001/2000, modifying the order dated 24.4.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhubaneswar, in Crl. Misc.Case NO.147 of 1997.

(2.) THE fact of the case, in brief, is that petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner No.2 is the daughter of the opposite party. The opposite party herein is working as Cashier in the Punjab National Bank. After their marriage on 12.6.1993, petitioner No.1 and the opposite party lived as husband and wife for about one year. At the time of marriage the father of petitioner No.1 had given colour T.V., cash of Rs. 50,000/ -etc. as dowry including various furniture and other house -hold articles. After the marriage, the opposite party demanded a Refrigerator, V.C.R. and Washing machine to fulfill the said demand, after which the opposite party started torturing the wife -petitioner No.1. When petitioner No.1 was carrying petitioner No.2, in an advanced stage of pregnancy, the opposite party left petitioner No.1 in her parental house where petitioner No.2 was born. It is also stated that the opposite party -husband did not take care of his wife and the child and refused to maintain them. Hence this crl. misc. case. The opposite party in his objection, admitting the factum of marriage with petitioner No.1 and also admitting petitioner No.2 as his daughter, specifically denied the allegation of demand of dowry. In his objection he also stated that, he wanted to compromise the matter which could not be materialised, as his wife -petitioner No.1 is adawment by staying in her fathers house and has falsely started this case. In order to prove their case, the petitioners examined as many as two witness including petitioner No.1 and the opposite party examined himself from his side.

(3.) THE short question in this revision is, whether the order of maintenance will be sustained from the dae of filing of the application or the date of passing of the order by the learned Magistrate.