AKHILESH PRASAD PANDA Vs. JAYANTI PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') petitioner challenges the order of maintenance granted in favour of the opposite party members by learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khurda in his order dated 4-8-1997 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 146 of 1994 under Section 125 of the Code.

(2.) Admittedly, opposite party No. 1 is the wife and opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor daughters of the petitioner being aged about 15 and 11 years respectively. The spouses have also a son aged about 18 years and he stays with the petitioner. About 15 years after the marriage, opposite party No. 1 started living separately since April, 1994 on the grounds of ill-treatment and cruelty by the petitioner, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law (petitioner's sister) for the reason of nonfulfiling the dowry demand of getting a piece of land from her father. She has stated that she was ill-treated and driven out. Petitioner, in his show-cause, has denied to the above allegations and stated that dispute between the spouses arose relating to keeping one Laxmipriya alias Sankha in their house. According to him, said Laxmipriya, a divorcee, came to their house for a period of 15 days to impart stitching training to opposite party No. 1 and successfully influenced opposite party No. 1, as a result of which opposite party No. 1 accepted her as her god daughter. The said Laxmipriya started interfering in their family affairs and started creating misunderstandings. When the petitioner wanted to remove her from their house, opposite party No. 1 resisted tooth and nail and even at the cost of instigating their children to revolt against their father i.e. the petitioner. Ultimately, when that lady being highly intolerable, was driven out, opposite party No. 1 became vindictive and of her own she left the house along with their daughters. Petitioner thus resisted the claim for maintenance on the ground of no desertion or cruelty from his side as well as under Section 125(4) of the Code. Petitioner also stated in his show-cause that opposite party No. 1 has sufficient means to maintain herself.

(3.) Both the parties adduced their respective evidence by examining themselves. Opposite party No. 2 was also examined as P.W.2 and petitioner's son was examined as O.P.W.2. Besides that, one Susanta Kumar Misra was examined as O.P.W.3. Both the parties relied upon series of documents.