SARAT CHAANDRA MOHAPATRA Vs. AMRUTA PRABHA MAHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matrimonial appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.6.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aska in Civil Suit No. 26 of 2004.

(2.) Short background involved in the case is that the respondent (plaintiff in the court below) claiming to be the daughter of the appellant (defendant in the court below) filed the suit bearing Civil Suit No. 26 of 2004 claiming therein monthly alimony of Rs. 1,500/ - per month from the month of July, 2002 till completion of her education or till her marriage and a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ - towards her marriage expenses from the appellant. The respondent claimed to be the only daughter of appellant having born on 2.3.1988 out of the wedlock of the appellant and Smt. Namita Mohapatra (mother of the respondent). It is in view of difference and dissension between her mother and father, the appellant drove away the mother of the respondent from the house of the appellant. The appellant did not take care either of his wife or his daughter (respondent) not even provided anything for their maintenance. It is at this stage, the appellant filed a suit bearing C.S. No. 71 of 1988 under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce against the respondent's mother. The suit C.S. No. 71 of 1988 was decreed by dissolution of their marriage and a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - was awarded as permanent alimony for both the respondent and her mother. It is averred that though the mother of the Respondent received the aforesaid sum from the appellant following the decree but in course of time, the mother -Smt. Namita Mohapatra spent the entire amount for the education and maintenance for herself as well as for the respondent, as a result of which the respondent was compelled to depend upon her maternal grand mother and the respondent is still under her guardianship. After the respondent completed her High School examination, the maternal grandmother became unable to provide money for her college education and for her maintenance constraining the respondent to write a letter to the father -appellant for providing her financial assistance. The respondent alleged that the appellant is a man of sufficient means having movable and immovable properties. He used to get Rs. 2,500/ - per month as house rent from one of his buildings at Aska town, he also earns Rs. 15,000/ - per month out of his business and he has also income from agricultural sources of more than Rs. 10,000/ - per annum. The respondent having already reached the marriageable age, finding the father has an obligation to meet her marriage expenses, the respondent required a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/ - towards her marriage expenses. Thus, the respondent was constrained to file the suit bearing C.S. No. 26 of 2004 making the claim as indicated hereinabove.

(3.) The appellant as defendant in C.S. No. 26 of 2004 filed written statement though claiming the respondent not to be his daughter but took a plea that when he and his wife were staying separately in the year 1988, his wife Smt. Namita Mohapatra along with her minor daughter, namely Bunu filed a suit bearing C.S. No. 32 of 1988 for passing an order of restitution of conjugal right and for granting compensation in their favour. Thereafter, the appellant filed C.S. No. 71 of 1988 for obtaining a decree of divorce. Considering the cases involved between the parties, the parties i.e. wife, husband and daughter being parties to C.S. No. 71 of 1988 as well as O.S. No. 32 of 1988, they all arrived at a compromise having terms and conditions that the appellant is to return some house hold articles of his wife and also to pay a sum of Rs. 14,000/ - towards the cost of the deficit articles. Further, the appellant is to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - by way of a Bank Draft towards permanent alimony for the wife and minor daughter -Bunu and another Bank Draft of Rs. 20,000/ - was also made in favour of Namita Mohapatra for separate residence of herself as well as Bunu and further a Demand Draft of Rs. 20,000/ - towards marriage expenses of the child. The compromise decree further contained that the amount of Rs. 20,000/ - to be paid in favour of the respondent shall not be utilized for 16 years which shall be kept in fixed deposit for 16 years and the whole amount shall be utilized in the marriage of Bunu. The compromise decree also contained a term that by virtue of such compromise, the mother of the respondent and the respondent herself will forfeit their entire future claim against the appellant with closer of all litigations pending between them.