SUJIT KUMAR GIRI Vs. LAXMIPRIYA MANNA @ GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner -husband) was the opposite party in Misc. Case No.235 of 2003 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the present opp.party (hereinafter referred to as 'the wife') claiming maintenance from the petitioner -husband, before the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore. The wife (opposite party herein) alleged that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner -husband and the marriage was solemnized on 27.2.2001 as per Hindu rites and customs at her parents house situated at Dubulagadi. After the marriage, she stayed in her matrimonial house located at Mansingh Bazar, Balasore. While residing in her matrimonial house, the parents of the writ petitioner -husband asked her to bring Rs.30,000/ - from her father for doing transport business, to which she did not agree. Thereafter, she has alleged that there was ill treatment by the petitioner - husband as well as the parents -in -law and even she was not allowed to go to her parents house in any festival. The wife further described in the petition several incidents, which took place between the members of her in -laws family and her parents family. She even alleged that there was assault on her. When she objected to the misbehaviour shown to her parents, she (wife) was thereafter left in her parents place with a threat that if she does not bring Rs.30,000/ -, the petitioner -husband will marry again. There were several attempts to settle the matter between the families, but were futile. An information to this effect was also lodged in Balasore Town Police Station. As neither maintenance was paid to her nor she was taken back by the petitioner - husband to her matrimonial home, she filed an application for maintenance alleging that the petitioner -husband is earning Rs.20,000/ - per month from transport business and Rs.10,000/ - per month as a land broker.

(2.) UPON notice being issued, the petitioner -husband filed his show cause denying all the allegations made by the wife and further pleaded that the opp.Party -wife is not the legally married wife and his marriage was never solemnized with her. According to the petitioner -husband, one Puspalata, daughter of one Ambikesh Mohapatra of village Sarthabindha was married to her on 22.11.2000 at Maninageswar Temple of Bardhanpur following the 'GANDHARBA form of marriage. There was also a deed of declaration made to that effect before the Notary Public, Balasore on 29.11.2000. It was, inter alia, pleaded by him that his father and the grand -father of the wife (opposite party herein) became good friends while his father was serving at the Union High School and there was a proposal for marriage between him and the wife -opposite party to which the petitioner -husband did not agree.

(3.) THE wife -opposite party herein examined as many as five witnesses in support of her case and the petitioner -husband examined two witnesses including himself. The learned S.D.J.M. analyzing the evidence as well as the materials on record came to a finding that the petitioner -husband failed to prove that he got married to one Puspalata prior to the date of marriage between him and the wife -opposite party. He further held that the petitioner -husband neglected the wife -opposite party and ill treated her for which she was constrained to stay at her parents place. Coming to such finding and upon assessment of the income of the petitioner -husband, he allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. directing the petitioner -husband to pay a sum of Rs.1000/ - per month as maintenance with effect from the date of filing of the application.