PRADEEPTA KUMAR BEHERA Vs. BISWAKALYANI PRUSTY @ BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 14.12.2015 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Keonjhar in MAT Case No. 147/12 of 2013 in a proceeding under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, wherein learned Judge, Family Court directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month to his wife (Respondent No. 1 herein) and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to his son (Respondent No. 2 herein) towards maintenance, from the date of the application, i.e., from 03.04.2013, within a period of one month. He further directed payment of current maintenance as well as cost and litigation expenses of Rs. 15,000/-

(2.) The respondent No. 1 herein filed a petition under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act 1956) contending inter alia that the marriage between her and the appellant was solemnized on 03.03.2002 as per Hindu rites and custom. They were blessed with a son on 02.09.2003, namely, Respondent No. 2. After the birth of the child, the Respondent No. 1 was not treated well by her in-laws. In the year 2010, when the appellant was working at Kolkata, her son became ill and there was necessity of surgical intervention. But, the appellant refused to arrange money for the same. When the Respondent No. 1-wife insisted upon arranging money for surgical intervention of the child, most surprisingly, the appellant disowned his responsibility saying that he had no relationship with them. Ultimately, the matter was reported at Industrial Police Station, Balasore on 21.09.2007 and at the intervention of Police, a settlement in writing was arrived. At that point of time, the appellant was based at Delhi and Respondent No. 1 with her child (Respondent No. 2) were staying at her parental home. The appellant visited Balasore in the year 2008. Knowing the same, the Respondent No. 1 along with her child came to her matrimonial home on 29.11.2008 at Balasore, but they were misbehaved and were not allowed to enter into the house of the appellant. When the matter stood thus, the appellant filed MAT No. 25 of 2009 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the said case, there was an amicable settlement on 02.12.2009. Accordingly, the Respondent No. 1 went to Delhi along with the child and stayed there with the appellant. While staying at Delhi, the father of Respondent No. 1 expired on 09.01.2011 and the respondents along with the appellant had come to attend obsequies of the father of respondent No. 1. Subsequently, on 27.05.2012, the respondent No. 1 had come to Odisha to see her widowed mother at Turmunga in the district of Keonjhar and returned to Delhi on 25.06.2012. When she reached Delhi along with her son, she found that the lock of the front door of their house was changed for which she could not enter into the house. She along with her son stayed in their neighbour's house till the appellant returned from his office. At about 9.00 P.M., the appellant returned from office, but did not allow the respondents to enter into the house. During the relevant period, Mr. Himanshu Sekhar Prusty, brother of respondent No. 1 was staying at Delhi. Finding no other alternative, respondent No. 1 called her brother. The appellant did not appreciate presence of the brother of respondent No. 1. He, instead of allowing her to enter into the house, threw the wearing apparels and other articles of respondent No. 1 outside and closed the door on the face of the respondent No. 1. Finding no alternative, respondent No. 1 returned to her parental home at Turumunga and has been staying there since 20.06.2011. She has no source of income of her own. They (she and her son) have become a burden on her widowed mother. The appellant is a Hardware Engineer and draws salary of more than Rs. 60,000/- per month. In addition to the same, he earns a good amount from the vast landed property at his village Angargadia, Balasore. Thus, she filed the petition under Section 18 and 20 of the Act for maintenance.

(3.) The appellant entered appearance and contested the case by filing written statement. He admitted his marriage with respondent No. 1 and that the respondent No. 2 was born out of their wedlock. But he denied other allegations made in the petition for maintenance. The appellant, in his written statement, contended that he was a brilliant scholar having good academic career in Science faculty. His wife-respondent No. 1 is an adamant and arrogant lady of a rich family of Keonjhar. Thus, she was unable to adjust in her matrimonial home. However, the difference between the couple was reconciled by intervention of gentlemen on 21.09.2007. Accordingly, she went to her parental home for two months for a change of mind. Instead of returning to matrimonial home, she threatened the family members of the appellant to file false criminal case against their, and send them to jail. Finding no other alternative, the appellant filed Matrimonial Case No. 25 of 2009 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore for restitution of conjugal right, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore and renumbered as C.P., No. 93 of 2010. While the matter stood thus, respondent No. 1 lodged an F.I.R. against the appellant in Turumunga P.S., which was registered as P.S. Case No. 85 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. (CT) Case No. 848 of 2013, which is now pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar. He further contended that his wife-respondent No. 1 had voluntarily deserted him (appellant) and left the matrimonial home without any just cause. Therefore, the petition under Sections 18 and 20 of the Act, 1956 would not be maintainable.