RAMANATH RATHA Vs. DURGA RATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, husband of the opposite party has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore, whereby, he set aside the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nowrangpur and allowed the petition of the opposite party under S.125 of the Cr. P.C. (Code' for short) by granting maintenance to be paid to her by the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month with effect from 27-1-1982.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the petitioner and the opposite party, husband and wife respectively are middle aged and the former fathered six children born to the latter. Both of them come from comparatively affluent families of Nowrangpur sub-division in Koraput district. According to the allegations made by the opposite party in her petition under S.125 of the Code, the petitioner kept a concubine which became the root cause for dissension between them. As she used to protest, the petitioner used to give her beatings, for which she had on several occasions left the matrimonial home and taken shelter in her paternal house. On one occasion she even went to Pondichery and lived with her sister in the Ashram of Sri Aurobindo. She was finally driven out by the petitioner who did not even provide bare necessities for her maintenance. The petitioner opposed and countered all the allegations by stating that he was not the culprit, but the real trouble-monger was the opposite party who is a spendthrift and has quarrelsome habits. She could not stay in peace with him and for no cause often picked up quarrels not only with him, but also with his parents. He denied that he had kept a mistress which was real cause for the family dissension and he stated that he was ready to welcome the opposite party back in the matrimonial home.

(3.) The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate while dealing with the evidence of the opposite party and her witnesses was more critical than usual in such types of cases. He wanted corroboration for the main events, such as, the quarrels and beatings leading to the dissension between the couple without lending thought to the fact that such events took place inside the house, may be in privacy in the absence of onlookers and neighbours. When no such corroboration could be provided, he was reluctant to accept the case of the opposite party. On the contrary he gulped the entire evidence produced by the petitioner straightway without becoming as much critical about the same. Ultimately, he rejected the maintenance claimed. In the above premises, when a revision was filed by the opposite party, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had to look up the evidence to satisfy himself that the appreciation thereof made by the learned court below was appropriate and correct. But he was disappointed. On the contrary he found that the appreciation of evidence as lop-sided, unreasonable and unacceptable. He appreciated the evidence in the correct perspective and held that the opposite party was treated with cruelty and was ultimately deserted by the petitioner without making any provision for her maintenance. This finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge has been vehemently challenged by Mr. K.T. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He urged that the learned Additional Sessions Judge exercising the power of revision had no business to scrutinise the evidence so as to record a different finding. Therefore, the revisional order is liable to be set aside. Mr. R.K. Patra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, on the other hand rightly contended that a case beset with human problems of enduring nature should not have been treated superficially seeking for corroboration of events which could not be provided and so the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate was quite in error in holding that without corroboration cruelty and desertion could not be established. In that context, according to him, the approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was more human and could be justly arrived at according to law. Therefore, the impugned order by which he has allowed maintenance of Rs. 75/- per month in these days of soaring prices will only save the opposite party from destitution and so it should not be set aside.