UDAYANATH SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OPP . Party No. 1 claiming herself to be the legally married wife and opp. party No. 2 as the minor daughter of the petitioner filed an application under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code (in short, "Cr.P.C.") before the learned S.D.J.M., Phulbani claiming a maintenance of Rs. 600/ -per month for opp. party No. 2. In that petition the opp. parties claimed that the marriage of opp. party No. 1 with petitioner was solemnized on 20th of February, 1980 in Cuttack Chandi Temple at Cuttack and opp. party No. 2 was born out of the said wedlock on 27.2.1983. They alleged that the petitioner neglected to maintain them and finally deserted them with effect from 15th June, 1985 and is not paying anything for their maintenance. Opp. Party No. 1 indicated that though she is employed in the Telephone Department, her income is not sufficient to maintain the minor daughter -opp. party No. 2 and so the petitioner, who is the father of opp. party No. 2, should pay maintenance to opp. party No. 2.

(2.) THE petitioner filed objection to the application for maintenance of opp. parties disputing the marriage with opp. party No. 1 and the paternity of opp. party No. 2. He alleged that opp. party No. 1 was initially married to one Sameswara Kanhar and opp. party No. 2 was born out of their wedlock. He also alleged that opp. party No. 1 is a lady of immoral character and had affair with Bidyadhar Behera, whom he described as her husband in a criminal proceeding lodged by her in 1997. He also alleged that at present opp. party No. 1 is enjoying her conjugal life with one Manohar Sahu. With the aforesaid denial and allegations, the petitioner prayed for dismissal of the claim of maintenance of opp. parties.

(3.) MR . S. K. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order in the M.C. No. 66 of 1997 was passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Phulbani without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner to adduce his evidence and without hearing his argument. He submits that the evidence and circumstances available on record were also not properly taken into consideration while passing the order and some official documents and admissions of opp. party No. 1, which indicated that opp. party No. 1 was not married to the petitioner, but was married to other persons, were totally ignored and conclusions were drawn in arbitrary manner. According to him, the petitioner raised all these points before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Phulbani in the revision, but without seriously considering the contentions and without answering the questions raised, a cryptic order was passed by simply confirming the order of maintenance passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Phulbani. He submits that the learned District & Sessions Judge, Phulbani also exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity by passing orders regarding execution of the arrear maintenance, though it was clearly beyond the scope and power of the revisional Court. The essence of the submission of Mr. Dash is that both the Courts below while passing the Impugned orders acted with material irregularity and drew conclusions, which are contrary to the materials on record.