MADHAB PRADHAN Vs. KETAKI PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision application under S. 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (in short, the 'Act'), order passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela accepting prayer for maintenance in respect of daughter of opposite party is the subject-matter of challenge.

(2.) Ketaki (opposite party) lodged a claim under S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code') claiming maintenance of Rs. 1,000.00 per month from petitioner Madhab for herself and her daughter alleging that she and petitioner had entered into wedlock and the daughter was their off spring. Her stand in short was as follows : She and Madhab belong to same village, Madhab was doing carpentry work along with her brothers, illicit sexual relationship developed between them, and they got married by exchanging garlands inside the jungle, Madhab led her to believe that they would be living together as husband and wife, persuaded her for sexual intercourse with him on several occasions, subsequently she became pregnant and gave birth to a child. When Medhab refused to accept her as his wife, she made a grievance before the villagers and several meetings were convened. But Madhab denied to accept her as his wife. She claimed maintenance on the ground that she was unable to maintain herself and the child, and Madhab having sufficient means was neglecting to maintain them. Madhab denied the allegations, and stated that he was not in visiting terms with Ketaki, and took a definite stand that Ketaki being of loose morals was involved in sexual affairs with several other persons, and might have conceived through any one of them.

(3.) The learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela considered the evidence of three witnesses examined in support of Ketaki's plea, and evidence of five witnesses examined to lend support to Madhab's stand. Ketaki was examined at P.W. 3, while Madhab was examined as O.P.W. 1. On consideration of respective stands and materials on record, the learned Judge, Family Court came to hold that Kataki was not entitled to maintenance because Madhab had earlier entered into a legal and valid marriage. He, however, observed that the child though illegitimate was entitled to maintenance.