PARBATI GIRI Vs. HARIHAR GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred as against the judgment delivered on October, 29, 1999 by the Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Civil Proceeding No. 31 of 1999.

(2.) PETITIONER before the Court below is the appellant. She instituted the proceeding under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 claiming for maintenance from the respondents on the assertion that she is the legally married wife of the Respondent. We see from the impugned judgment as well as the application filed by the appellant in the Court below that she claimed of a temple marriage by exchange of garlands and through that the legal status of a wife in accordance with the provision of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. She narrated the events by saying that a day before the Viswakarma Puja of 1995 she and the respondent, because of the love affair, went to Siva Temple, exchanged garlands and lived as husband and wife in the place where the petitioner has domiciled. Notwithstanding the intermittent dispute between the two, she helped him by lending a sum of Rs. 35,000/ - from her savings to enable the respondent to purchase a truck and some time after purchase of that truck the respondent deserted her and stayed with another woman on the pretext that he had married the said woman. In February, 1999 when the respondent had came to Rourkela, petitioner approached him for resumption of the conjugal life and when the respondent declined she reported the matter at the Mahila Police Station in Sector -3, Rourkela and because of that a G.R. Case has been registered against the Respondents for the offence under Sections 498 -A/494/406, IPC. She asserted that the monthly income of the respondent was Rs. 20,000/ - and she needed Rs. 3,000/ - towards her monthly maintenance.

(3.) LEARNED Judge, Family Court, Rourkela recorded the evidence adduced by the parties on the issues, In that process, petitioner examined six witnesses including herself as P.W. No. 1 and the respondent examined three witnesses including himself as D.W. No. 1. A few joint photos of the petitioner and respondent were introduced into evidence as Exts. X to X2 and a daily deposit account in 'Sahara India' as Ext. 1. Such documentary evidence was tendered by the petitioner.