KESHAB CHANDRA BARIHA Vs. KUMARI BARIHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order/judgment dated 21/9/2001 passed by the AddI. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in Cr1. Revision No.4/5 of 2001 confirming the order dated 21/10/2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-J.M.F.C. Jharsuguda in Cri. Misc. Case No.60 of 1998. The petitioner has also prayed to quash further proceedings in Execution Case No.63 of 2001 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner-husband married Opp. Party No. I on 4.5.1998 in consonance with Hindu customs. They led a blissful married life and out of the wed-lock, Opp. Party No.2 was born on 11.6.1989. It is alleged that the wife-Opp. party No. 1 was sent to her paternal house on her confinement as per the caste customs on 10.5.1989. But-then, after delivery of a male child (O.P. No.2) in her fathers house, the husband neither came to see his new born son nor his wife. It is further alleged that in spite of several requests, the petitioner-husband did not bother to take care of his wife and the child (Opp. Parties). The Opp. Party-wife was constrained to reside with her parents along with her new born son and faced tremendous difficulties. On query, the wife also came to know that taking advantage of her absence, her husband married one Pravasin Naik through whom he had begotten three children and all of them were staying together. According to the wife, as her husband did not maintain her and the son, she was constrained to initiate a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- each, in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)-cum-J.M.F.C., Jharsuguda. The said petition was registered as Cr1. Misc. Case No. 60 of 1998.

(3.) The husband appeared in the said case and filed a counter taking a positive plea that the wife wilfully deserted him for which she was not entitled to any maintenance. He also took the stand that as the wife did not return to her in-laws house after giving birth to Opp. Party No.2, the husband filed a suit praying for restitution of conjugal rights. The said suit was registered as T.S. No.41 of 1991 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) J. Sambalpur and was decreed ex parte on 17/12/1991. In spite of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the wife did not return back to her husbands house and the said act clearly revealed that she had wilfully deserted her husband, that too, without any sufficient reason and as such, she was not entitled to any maintenance and the petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. ought to be dismissed in limine.