RAMA CHANDRA SAHU Vs. TAPASWINI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a major unmarried daughter is entitled to maintenance from her father under S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the point which needs determination in this case.

(2.) Tapaswini Sahoo, and her daughter Kumari Bhanumati Sahoo, present opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, filed a petition under S. 125, Cr. P.C. before the SDJM, Anandapur which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 62 of 2002 claiming maintenance from the present petitioner-Rama Chandra Sahoo with the averments that Tapaswani was the legal married wife of Rama Chandra. Their marriage was celebrated in the year 1979 according to their caste customs. The couple had a blissful married life, but dissension cropped up soon after the birth of their daughter Bhanumati. Rama Chandra on demand of dowry tortured Tapaswani. He used to assault Tapaswini, threatened her for getting married second time and neglected to maintain her and daughter Bhanumati who was a minor. Intervention of the family members and well-wishers yielding no result, Tapaswani was constrained to leave her matrimonial house along with daughter Bhanumati and stayed separately. Rama Chandra still did not desist from torturing Bhanumati. He took forcibly occupation of the house where Tapaswani was staying with her daughter and drove them out of that house. Finding no other alternative, Tapaswani took shelter in her father's house along with Bhanumati. Asserting that Rama Chandra is an able-bodied person, was earning Rs. 6,000.00 per month in the minimum out of his business in running a hotel and restaurant, had 3 to 4 acres of landed property of his own and was a well-to-do person, Tapaswani claimed a maintenance of Rs. 1,000.00 each for herself and daughter Bhanumati,

(3.) Present petitioner-Rama Chandra, as the opposite party in the said Criminal Misc. Case, entered appearance and filed his show cause reply taking the stand that Tapaswani was not his legally married wife nor Bhanumati was anyway related to him. He further asserted that he had his separate family having wife and children and the petition under S. 125, Cr. P.C. was liable to be dismissed in limine.