DEBA PRASAD PALEI Vs. SABITARANI PALEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under S. 19(1) of the Family Courts Act assails the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Rourkela directing payment of maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month to opposite party No. 1 and Rs. 200/- per month to opposite party No. 2 by the present petitioner with effect from 4-11-1992 on which date the application was made. The opposite parties have not appeared in spite of notice. The admitted facts are that the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 had married on 26-3-1990 and opposite party No. 2 is the son born to them. The petitioner filed O. S. No. 54 of 1992 before the Subordinate Judge, Khurda seeking dissolution of the marriage, by divorce. In the suit, the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written statement that there was ill-feeling between the parties because of dowry demand of the petitioner and that there had been an amicable settlement effected by gentlemen of the village but that failed as the petitioner did not want to keep opposite party No. 1 as his wife, and that for such reason there had been a mutual agreement for divorce at the intervention of gentlemen. The Opposite party No. 1 wanted to be free from the clutches of the petitioner because of his ill-treatment and wanted to reside with her parents. She also filed an application on 18-9-1992 that it was impossible for her to remain as the wife of the petitioner and that she had no objection for a decree of divorce to be passed and that in future she would not claim any maintenance nor would resort to any legal action against the petitioner. She prayed in the petition that a decree for divorce be passed. The suit was decreed ex parte against opposite party No. 1 on 30-1-1993. In the meantime the opposite parties filed the petition under S.125, Cri.P.C. on 4-11-1992 before the Judge, family Court claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month for each of them. The petition was filed after the petition was filed by opposite party No. 1 on 18-9-1992 before the subordinate Judge, Khurda. The petitioner though received notice in the case did not appear but sent time petitions on 2-12-l992 and 4-1-1993 through post on the ground, on the first occasion, that he had not been able to arrange necessary papers to file his written statement and that two months' time might be granted for the purpose and on the second occasion on the ground that he being ill was not able to obtain the copies of different applications that had been made by opposite party No. 1 in different cases. The second application for time was taken up by the learned. Judge on 4-1-1993, the date fixed, when it was submitted on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 that a divorce proceeding between the parties was sub judice before the subordinate Judge, Khurda and that unless maintenance was granted to her, she could not sustain herself nor can contest the divorce suit. The learned Judge considering the facts treated the petitioner as wilfully avoiding to appear in the case and set him ex parte and passed final orders on 25-1-1993,

(2.) Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged in pressing the revision that since the opposite party No. 1 herself had filed written statement and petition in the divorce suit that a decree for divorce might be passed and that she would not claim any maintenance from the petitioner nor would resort to any legal action against him and the decree for divorce had been passed on her request, the Judge, Family Court was bound by the decree and no order of maintenance could be passed in view of the very stand adopted by opposite party No. 1. It is his further submission that the petitioner was not able to appear before the Family Court because of threat and risk to his life and that even though he had appeared on 11-2-1993 risking his life and had filed a petition to set aside the ex parte order and had produced documents, yet he was orally advised by the Judge to file a revision.

(3.) Before the question urged at length by Mr. Mukherjee regarding the relative weight and consequence of the decree for divorce passed by the civil court as well as the petition filed by opposite party No.1 disclaiming maintenance there is considered, the other submission made by him may be disposed of. There is absolutely no material to support the case of the petitioner, as is made out here, that he did not appear before the Family Court because of threat and risk to his life. This submission is plainly an after-thought. The two adjournment petitions sent by him through post did not mention any such ground. There is also no other material brought forth that the petitioner had any time suffered any threat to his life by the opposite parties and that his life was in danger if he came to Rourkela.