RACHITA ROUT Vs. BASANTA KUMAR ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jajpur Road, claiming maintenance from the opposite party under S.125, Criminal P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"). Her application having been rejected by the learned Magistrate, the present revision has been preferred. The petitioner alleges that she is the legally married wife of the opposite party and marriage between them having taken place on 5-7-1979 according to the Hindu rites. The opposite party neglected her as the dowry demanded by him could not be satisfied and ultimately the opposite party drove away the petitioner from his house and refused to maintain her. It was alleged that the opposite party has married again the daughter of one Dwija Nayak and has sufficient means to maintain the petitioner. The petitioner claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month.

(2.) The opposite party denies the allegations made in the petition and also avers that the petitioner is living in adultery and both of them are living separately by mutual consent. According to the opposite party, the petitioner was caught red-handed while she was having sexual relationship with one Natabar Beuria and thereafter she voluntarily left the house expressing her inability to stay with the opposite party and, therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance under S.125 of the Code.

(3.) Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner and four witnesses were examined on behalf of the opposite party while a number of documents were also exhibited by either party. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the story of the petitioner that dowry was demanded after marriage appeared to be improbable. He also held that the petitioner had failed to establish the allegation that the opposite party had married for the second time the daughter of Dwijabar Nayak. The learned Magistrate accepted the case of the opposite party and held that the petitioner is living in adultery and further petitioner could not prove the negligence or refusal on the part of her husband to maintain her and ultimately rejected the petition invoking the jurisdiction under sub-s. (4) of S.125 of the Code.