SATYABHAMA NAYAK Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Marriages are made in heaven, it is said. But, looking at the large number of litigations coming to Courts seeking judicial separation, divorce, grant of maintenance what comes to mind is Shakespeare's words in Merchant of Venice : "The ancient saying is no hersay, Hanging and wiving go by destiny." The immortal writer had written : "A young man married is a man that's marred" (in "Alls Well That Ends Well').

(2.) Appellant Smt. Satyabhama Nayak (hereinafter referred to as the 'wife') and respondent Narendra Kumar Nayak (hereinafter referred to as the 'husband') entered into marital ties on 6-6-1982. They were blessed with a child. Husband filed T.S. No. 92 of 1990 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Rourkela (now Civil Judge, Sr. Divn.) seeking a decree of divorce under S. 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the 'Act') on the ground of desertion. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court. Cuttack on the basis of order passed in MJC No. 47 of 1991 filed by the wife and was registered as Civil Proceeding No. 446 of 1991. Criminal Misc. Case No. 117 of 1991 was filed by the wife and her son for maintenance in terms of S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code'), in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kandrapara. The same was renumbered as Criminal Proceeding No. 727 of 1991 in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack on transfer. Final order was passed in the said proceeding directing husband to pay Rs. 250/ - per month to the wife, and Rs, 100/- per month to the son with effect from 1-10-1991. Misc. Case No. 334 of 1992 was filed by the wife and her son for enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 350/ - (sic) to Rs. 2,000/ - per month. On 4-4-1994 all the proceedings were taken up together and disposed of with the following observations :

(3.) Mr. A. K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the wife submitted that the course adopted by the learned Judge, Family Court is unknown to law. Even if it is conceded but not admitted that the wife had agreed for a divorce, a decree for divorce could not have been passed without compliance with the requirements of S. 13B of the Act. Mr. K. M. Mishra, learned counsel for the husband on the other hand submitted that after having agreed for a divorce, there is no scope for making a grievance and therefore, appeal is thoroughly misconceived.