PURNA CHANDRA LENKA Vs. KANAKALATA LENKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the judgment dated 16.01.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore in C.P.No. 206 of 2012 directing the present petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3000/- to the opposite party from the date of application i.e. 06.08.2012.

(2.) The present opposite party filed the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C, 1973 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore on 06.08.2012 with the submissions that her marriage with the present petitioner took place on 02.03.1982 as per Hindu rites and customs.Out of their said wedlock one daughter and one son were born. She alleged that at the time of marriage, the family members of the present petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) as dowry which was given along with some other household articles. She alleged that the husband demanded more dowry and tortured her and on 28.05.1984 she was driven out of her matrimonial house by the present petitioner and since then she has been residing separately. She further alleged that the present petitioner-husband has been residing with his concubine for the last twenty five years without providing any maintenance to the opposite party-wife despite her repeated demands. She further submitted that the present petitioner-husband was serving as a Mechanic in the Agro Industries Corporation getting monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/-. Submitting that on the last occasion she approached her husband on 05.08.2012 demanding maintenance which was refused, she filed the application claiming a monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000/-

(3.) The present petitioner-husband as opposite party in the proceeding filed his counter denying the entire allegations including the marriage with the petitioner and parenthood of the children with further submissions that the petitioner-wife in the proceeding was leading a adulterous life staying in her father's house and was harassing the opposite party-husband. He submitted that he has never neglected or tortured the petitioner-wife. Hence, she is not entitled for maintenance, moreso after staying away on her own admission for more than twenty five years.