SAROJINI SAHU AND ANR. Vs. SIBA PRASAD SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur who by the impugned order set aside the order of the learned Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code and held that the Petitioners are not entitled to receive maintenance under the said provision.

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 alleging to be the legally married wife of opposite party and Petitioner No. 2 alleging to be the daughter born out of their wedlock filed an application under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance from the opposite party. It was the case of the Petitioners that the marriage between Petitioner Nu. 1 and opposite party took place in 1976 and both of them lived together as husband and wife at Padmapur. Petitioner No. 1 conceived during that period and she was brought by her father Dolamani to her own house and then again came back to her husband during Chaitra, 1977. While she was in advanced stage of pregnancy she was taken to her own house by her parents where Petitioner No. 2 was born. Thereafter, she gave intimation to her husband, the opposite party to come and take her back but did not receive any information from him. Petitioner No. 1 's parents also requested on several occasions to take back their daughter, but was of no avail. It was, therefore, asserted to the application that the opposite party has neglected and refused to maintain his wife and daughter and would therefore be liable to pay maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So far as the income of the opposite party is concerned, the Petitioners asserted that he is a school teacher drawing a salary of Rs. 350/ - per month and also has landed property to the extent of five acres. On these assertions maintenance to the tune of Rs. 400/ - (Rs. 250/ - for the wife and Rs. 150/ - for the child) was claimed.

(3.) BEFORE the learned Magistrate there witnesses were examined on behalf of the Petitioners and five witnesses were examined on behalf of the opposite party. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the entire evidence on record, came to hold that Petitioner No. 1 is the legally married wife of the opposite party and Petitioner No. 2 is their daughter. He has further found that the husband has neglected and refused to maintain the wife and the wife continues to remain in her father 's house and accordingly the husband is liable to pay the maintenance in question.