SAROJINI RATHO Vs. BHASKAR RATHO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Deprivation of right to claim maintenance from her husband being permanently restrained by trial court is grievance of a Hindu wife in this appeal.

(2.) Coming from two Brahmin families of Parlakhemundi when it was in Ganjam district, plaintiff and defendant were married in the year 1964. They were blessed with a daughter in 1966. Hardly two years thereafter in December, 1968, plaintiff, her husband accompanied and left her with her parents at Chhatrapur. Returning therefrom he filed a suit for annulment of the marriage or in the alternative, judicial separation on 3-1-1969 at Berhampur. During pendency of the proceeding, father of defendant approached his friends for settlement. It could not materialise. Suit was dismissed on 14-9-1970. Plaintiff negotiated for second marriage and marriage with daughter of one Chintamani Misra was fixed in 1971-72. In or about February, 1972, defendant filed a complaint at Puri against plaintiff and others for commission of offence under S.494, I.P.C. This criminal case was compounded on 21-6-1973 and that day plaintiff paid Rs. 10,000/- to defendant. When defendant filed an application for maintenance under S. 125, Cr.P.C. at Parlakhemundi, plaintiff filed the suit at Parlakhemundi to declare that the marriage between the parties is void and there is a dissolution of marriage by consent of parties and to restrain defendant from making any claim against plaintiff as his wife.

(3.) Short case of plaintiff is that per custom prevailing in Brahmin community of Ganjam district, there is a divorce by settlement and plaintiff has paid Rs. 10,000/- towards permanent alimony of defendant. Short case of defendant is that there is no settlement as claimed by plaintiff that on receipt of Rs. 10,000/- as permanent alimony there would be a divorce. She stated that the amount of Rs.10,000/- has been received for compounding the criminal case.