SABITRI SENAPATI Vs. JUDGE FAMILY COURT CUTTACK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 19(3) of the Family Courts Act, 11984 against judgment dated 12-7-1999 of the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 313 of 1997 dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent No. 2 by a decree of divorce subject to payment of Rs. 40.000/- by the respondent No. 2 to the appellant towards permanent alimony.

(2.) The brief facts are that the respondent No. 2 filed the aforesaid Civil Proceeding No. 313 of 1997 in the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack for dissolution of the marriage of the appellant with the respondent No. 2. The case of the respondent No. 2 in the petition of divorce was that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 29-5-1996 at Athgarh, but soon after the marriage, the respondent No. 2 received an anonymous letter from someone alleging that the appellant had relationship with him. On enquiry it was revealed that the father of the appellant had lodged an F. I. R. bearing No. 55/95 on 7-4-1995 at Gundichapara Sadar Police Station of Dhenkanal alleging that one Bana alias Pramod Senapati was attempting to kidnap the appellant. On the basis of the said F. I. R. G. R. Case No. 185 of 1995 was instituted in the Court of the S. D. J. M., Dhenkanal. The respondent No. 2 then contacted the accused in the said case, namely, Pramod Senapati, and came to know that he was having a love affair for a long time with the appellant. The further case of the respondent No. 2 in the petition for divorce is that Pramod Senapati was a servant in the house of the appellant and for this reason, the marriage was solemnized not at Indipur where the house of the appellant was located but at Athgarh. On account of this love affair between the appellant and Pramod Senapati, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent No. 2 could not be consummated and the appellant left the house of the respondent No. 2 immediately within aweek of the marriage. The further case of respondent No. 2 in the petition for divorce is that after separation from the respondent No, 2, the appellant has again kept relationship with Pramod Senapati and is living in adultery with him.

(3.) The appellant in her show cause filed before the Judge, Family Court, denied the allegations made in the petition for divorce that she had a relationship with Pramod Senapati, but she admitted that her father had lodged an F. I. R. on 7-4-1995 at Sadar Police Station, Gundichapara against Pramod Senapati as he tried to kidnap the appellant. In the said show cause, the appellant further stated that Pramod Senapati was working on daily wage basis in the rice huller of her father and was driven out from the work on the Dushera Day in the year 1994 as he had taken away a Spark Moped of her father without permission. The appellant also stated in the show cause that it is not correct that the marriage was solemnized at Athgarh instead of Indipur on account of the alleged relationship between the appellant and Pramod Senapati and that the marriage was solemnized at Indipur. The appellant also denied the statement in the petition for divorce made by respondent No. 2 that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent No. 2 had not been consummated and instead stated that after the marriage, the appellant and the respondent No. 2 were living as husband and wife and had conjugal relationship for about five months from the date of the marriage. The appellant alleged in her show cause that although at the time of the marriage one gold chain, two gold rings, one H. M. T. watch and other gold ornaments were given to the respondent No. 2 as per his demand, due to financial difficulty his demand for a scooter could not be met and an assurance was given by the father of the appellant that after three months he will fulfill the said demand. Subsequently on 17-6-1996 the father of the appellant went to the house of the respondent No. 2 along with others and handed over Rs. 22,565/- towards the demand of a scooter. In the said show cause the appellant further stated that after Kumar Purnima the father of the appellant went to Parsurampur and brought the appellant to Indipur on 28-10-1996 to observe Laxmipuja ceremony and while coming to Indipur the appellant was told by the respondent No. 2 as well as his family members that he must pay Rs. 50.000/-, one colour TV, one refrigerator, but her father was not able to meet the said demands on account of acute financial difficulties. After the Laxmipuja was over, the father of the respondent No. 2 sent a message to the father of the appellant that they will not take back the appellant and since then the appellant has been staying In the house of her father.