ASWINI TANDI Vs. UMA TANDI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment dtd. 3rd February, 2006 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Civil Proceeding No. 101/2002 is assailed in this appeal filed under Sec. 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Respondent No. 1 being the wife of Appellant and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively being son and daughter, and minors, filed a petition under Ss. 18 and 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act claiming maintenance.

(2.) The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant had married Respondent No. 1 in consonance with Hindu rites and customs on 8.7.1995. Initially they led a blissful married life and out of their wedlock Respondents 2 and 3 (son and daughter) were born. Respondent No. 1 alleged that the Appellant misbehaved with her without any rhyme or reason often he used to come drunk to the house and even did not hesitate to assault her of and on. Respondent No. 1 further alleged that her in laws also used to torture her both mentally physically on the allegation that she had brought inadequate dowry. Several other overt acts were alleged to have been committed by the Appellant and the in -laws. Bereft of unnecessary details, it would suffice to state that the relationship reached a breaking point and it is alleged that Respondent No. 1 was driven out of her matrimonial house on 31.5.1996 and since then she is living with her parents. It is further alleged that she gave birth to Respondents 2 and 3 on 24th December, 1996 and that in spite of her best efforts and persuasion of her family members the Appellant never bothered to take Respondents to his house or to stay with them. Consequently she filed the petition claiming maintenance.

(3.) The Appellant, who was Respondent before the Judge, Family Court, appeared and filed has written statement denying all the allegations made against him and stating that the same had been made with an avowed oblique motive. The same were not only false, but also concocted. It was averred that he had lot of love and affection for his wife and children, had spent huge money for their betterment and also during pregnancy of Respondent No. 1, but Respondent No. 1 intentionally deserted him. He was always ready and willing to take the Respondents back. According to the Appellant, under such circumstances, the Respondents are not entitled to any maintenance.