SRI. SANJIB KUMAR PANDA Vs. SMT. SUKANTI DASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sec. 19 of the Family Court's Act, 1984 assailing the legality of the order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Proceeding No. 186 of 2013 directing the present petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 13,500.00 per month from the date of application i.e. 13.12.2013 till the date of order i.e. 29.11.2017 and to pay Rs. 15,000.00thereafter.

(2.) The present opposite party filed the application under section 125 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 submitting that she came in contact with the present petitioner in the year 2008 and developed relationship with him. Thereafter, their marriage was performed in the temple of Dakhinakali, Birapratappur in the district of Puri. After the marriage, they went to hotel at Puri and also visited different places of State and stayed in different hotels as husband and wife. Coming back to Bhubaneswar, they stayed in a flat at Bibekananda Marg, Bhubaneswar. Subsequently, some differences arose between the two and the opposite party came to know that the petitioner had an earlier wife and a daughter. She further alleged that the petitioner misbehaved and assaulted her and ultimately left her company in the month of Oct., 2013 whereafter she has to stay in distress having no source of income for livelihood and maintenance Hence, she claimed a monthly maintenance of rupees one lakh from the present petitioner-husband submitting that he is a man of sufficient means.

(3.) The present petitioner as opposite party entering appearance, denied the factum of marriage and pleaded that on the request of the petitioner, he had given her some financial assistance but taking advantage of her acquaintance with the family of the opposite party she created a story of marriage, managing to get some photographs. The opposite party-husband also submitted that he had a wife and a daughter of 9-year-old, apart from the fact that the petitioner-wife was having her own business with substantial income and Bank balances. He also alleged that the petitioner-wife was living in a live-inrelationship with another person at her given address.