SATYANARAYAN CHANDRA DEO Vs. KUMARI RAJAMANI DEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K .P. Mohapatra, J. - 1.This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rairakhol granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month to the opposite party from the date of application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short).

(2.) THE opposite party, Kumari Rajamani Deo and her mother, Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi filed a petition under section 125 of the Code claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/ - for the former and Rs. 1000/ - for the latter per month from the date of filing the application. According to their case, Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi, daughter of the ex -ruler of Vaana in the State of Gujarat was married to the petitioner, one of the sons of the ex -ruler of Rairakhol, in the year 1953 according to the religious customs prevalent in Raj families. They lived happily and out of the wedlock the opposite party was born on 13.7.1963. Sometime thereafter, the petitioner took to a lift" of adultery, committed many acts of cruelty towards his wife and daughter and even made attempts to have them killed. He grabbed the cash and jewellery of his wife and did not maintain them. They were removed from Rairakhol palace and were made to live in a farm house in a village called 'Pandakimal'. Later they were even ousted from the farm house. It was stated that the opposite party and her mother, both belonging to former Raj families, were reduced to destitution and were practically living on doles and charities extended to them by persons who were their former subjects.

(3.) THE learned trial court formulated the following three points for determination: Whether Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi was the legally married wife of the petitioner. Whether the opposite party is the daughter of the petitioner or an illegitimate child, and Whether Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi and the opposite party are entitled to maintenance and, if so the quantum thereof. So far as the first point was concerned, he found that the petitioner and Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi were admittedly legally married, but in T.S. No. 31 of 1974 of the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur a decree was passed in favour of the petitioner and exparte against Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi, whereby, the marriage between them was dissolved and a decree of divorce was passed on 12.5.1980 (Ext. M). Thereafter, there was no relationship of husband and wife between the petitioner and Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi. So far as the second point was concerned, he found that the petitioner had access to his wife in the years 1962 and 1963 and so the opposite party was born out of the wedlock. Accordingly, she is the legitimate daughter of the petitioner. With regard to the third point he found that Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi was not entitled to maintenance because, the marriage did not subsist after 12.5.1980, but the opposite party being the daughter of the petitioner was entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month from the date of filing of the application for maintenance.