DIPTI MOHANTY Vs. SURYA PRAKASH MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Marriage is that relation between man and woman in which the independence is equal, the dependence mutual and the obligation reciprocal."

(2.) It is the case of the appellants in MATA No. 66 of 2010 that the marriage between the appellant No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 28.4.1999 as per Hindu customs and rites at Cuttack and at the time of marriage, cash of Rs.3 lakhs, gold ornaments of about 200 gms and other household articles were given and after the marriage, the appellant no.1 came to stay at her in-law's house at Jatni where she and the respondent lived together as husband and wife and their marriage was consummated. The respondent was serving as an Art Teacher in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya at Zinc Nagar in the district of Sundargarh and after two months of marriage, the respondent took the appellant No.1 to his service place where the couple lived together. During such stay, the appellant No.1 was neglected and tortured by the respondent, for which the father of appellant no.1 brought her back to his house in the month of November 1999. By that time the appellant no.1 was pregnant and she was physically and mentally weak due to non-providing of proper food by the respondent and she was also not getting proper care and moral support from the respondent. Appellant no.2 was born on 20.2.2000 at the parental house of appellant no.1 and the respondent did not pay a single pie towards the medical treatment or the expenses as was incurred during child birth and also during 21st day celebration and all the expenditure were borne by the parents of appellant no.1. In the month of July 2003, the respondent was transferred to Jawahar Navodaya School at Jharsuguda and with much reluctance, the respondent took the appellants to Jharsuguda wherein they stayed inside the school campus. During such stay, the respondent persuaded the appellant no.1 to bring a cash of Rs.5 lakhs from her parents to purchase a vehicle for business purpose and the father of the appellant no.1 was compelled to pay such amount to the respondent so that the appellant no.1 would live peacefully. The respondent persuaded the appellant no.1 to start business to maintain herself and opened a stationary shop and S.T.D. Booth in the said school campus which was managed by the appellant No.1. Even though the appellant No.1 was looking after the business but the respondent was handling the cash and taking away all the profits and most of the time, the appellants were remaining without food and their health condition deteriorated. The respondent also maintained distance from appellant No.1 and in spite of repeated persuasion of the appellant No.1, the respondent did not change his attitude. The respondent compelled the appellant No.1 to bring cash from her father to have a building or land at Cuttack town in his name. As the appellant No.1 did not agree with such demand of the respondent, she was threatened to be killed. Ultimately the appellants were brought from Jharsuguda and they lived in a rented house at Rajendra Nagar, Cuttack and the household articles were also shifted from Jharsuguda to Cuttack. The respondent did not pay any amount to the appellants towards their day to day expenses and house rent. When the appellant No.1 asked the respondent to pay the house rent, he told her to bring money from her father. The respondent was transferred from Jharsuguda to Nayagarh but he did not take the appellants with him and accordingly the appellants continued to maintain a very miserable and sorrowful life at Cuttack. Due to continuous physical and mental torture of the respondent, finding no other way out, the appellants came back to the parent's house of appellant no.1 with much mental agony but the appellant no.1 was always apprehending danger to her life from the respondent. The appellant No.2 was admitted in a School and the respondent used to threaten the appellant No.1 to take away appellant no.2 forcibly. Due to mental shock on account of the misbehavior of the respondent, the father of appellant no.1 died and since 1st week of December 2007, the respondent finally deserted the appellants without any just reasonable cause. According to the appellants, the respondent was drawing a salary of Rs.28,000/- per month as a Senior Art. Teacher in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Nayagarh and he was having a homestead land and building. On the other hand, the appellant no.1 was having no independent source of income to maintain herself and her child and accordingly they prayed for a direction to the respondent for payment of Rs.15,000/- per month towards their maintenance as well as educational expenses of appellant no.2 with effect from December 2007. The application was filed on 31.10.2008.

(3.) The respondent filed his written statement denying the allegation leveled against him by the appellants and stated that he was maintaining the appellants properly and comfortably and that he has spent all the amount at the time of birth of appellant no.2 and also towards the medical expenses and for celebration of 21st day of appellant no.2. The respondent took the appellant no.1 to his different service places and both of them also visited many historical places and all the expenses were borne by the respondent. The respondent paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs through Demand Draft to the father of appellant No.1. It is stated that without any just and reasonable cause, the appellant no.1 left the rented house with appellant No.2 and shifted all the household articles to her parental house without the knowledge and consent of the respondent and since 26.3.2008 there is no marital relationship between the appellant no.1 and the respondent. The appellant no.1 being misguided by one Nrupesh Biswal @ Babu was not keeping any relationship with the respondent. The respondent denied the quantum of his salary to be Rs.28,000/- and further stated that he had to maintain his aged parents and unmarried sister and had also to incur expenses for their medical treatment. The respondent claimed to be paying installments regularly towards the loan amount incurred for the purchase of one Bolero XLI and one TATA load body standing in the name of the appellant No.1.