(1.) In this revision petition under section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the petitioner Sanghamitra Moharana has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.2013 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Criminal Proceeding No.217 of 2008 in dismissing her petition for maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C.
(2.) The petitioner and her daughter Lusna Moharana (proforma opposite party) filed the maintenance petition wherein it is stated that the petitioner is the legally married wife of the opposite party Balaram Moharana and their marriage was solemnized in the year 1989 as per Hindu rites and customs and out of their wedlock, Lusna Moharana (proforma opposite party) was born in the year 1990 and since the petitioner was tortured by her husband and in-laws family members, she left her matrimonial house and came to reside at her paternal place with her minor daughter. It is the further case of the petitioner that at the intervention of the Orissa State Legal Aid and Advice Board, the opposite party took back the petitioner and their minor daughter and thereafter the petitioner conceived for the second time but again she was tortured and driven out of her matrimonial house and she came to reside at her paternal place with her minor daughter again and there she delivered her second daughter. Since the opposite party did not provide anything for the maintenance of the petitioner and their two daughters, maintenance petition was filed by the petitioner for herself and her two minor daughters. The opposite party then filed a divorce case against the petitioner but took her and the minor children back by executing an agreement where she was tortured again for which she came back again to her paternal place with two minor daughter. The second daughter while prosecuting her studies in class-VII died on 23.04.2006 on account of her illness. The opposite party being a Govt. servant did not provide any maintenance even if the minor daughter (proforma opposite party) prosecuted her studies in Ravenshaw College, Cuttack and the petitioner was taking all her care for which the maintenance application out of which the impugned judgment arises, was filed.
(3.) During course of hearing of the maintenance proceeding, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and her mother was examined as P.W.2.