ANJALI BEHERA Vs. LINGARAJ BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani, dated 7 -9 -1988 quashing the order of the learned S.D.J.M., Baliguda, dated 13 -8 -1987 directing the present opposite party -husband to pay maintenance to the petitioner -wife at the rate of Rs. 100/ - per month.

(2.) THE petitioner is the legally married wife of the opposite party. The petitioner alleges that after her marriage with the opposite party, she went to the house of the opposite party to live with him as his wife, but soon after he started ill -treating her and ultimately after a few days the opposite party and his elder brother Indra Behera had forcibly removed the gold ornaments from her person and drove her out of their house and since then the opposite party was not prepared to receive her back and so she was compelled to reside with her parents and was ultimately driven to file the petition claiming maintenance. The opposite party asserts that the petitioner had left his house out of her own accord as she was mad. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. On a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned S.D.J.M. allowed the wife's petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. but as the learned Sessions Judge, on revision, set aside order in her favour, she preferred the present revision before this court.

(3.) THE evidence of the petitioner, who examined herself as PW 2, shows that soon after the marriage of the opposite party, she went to the house of the opposite party, taking with her the articles mentioned in the list, Ext. 1, as dowry. The petitioner deposed that after the third day of her marriage, her husband's elder brother (OPW No. 2) forcibly removed all the gold ornaments worn by her and thereafter the opposite party and his elder brother (OPW No. 2) drove her out of the house when she had to take shelter in the house of one Hadi Behera. PW 4 is the father of the petitioner. PWs. 1 and 3 were examined as independent witnesses. There is nothing in the evidence of PWs. 1, 3 and 4 to discredit their testimony that on the date of marriage the opposite party and his brother quarrelled with the petitioner's father on the ground that the quantum of dowry given to them was less. The evidence of the petitioner that after the gold ornaments worn by her were forcibly taken away by the opposite party's elder brother, she was driven out of the house of her husband, has not been shaken in cross -examination. Her version that after she was so driven away, she took shelter in the house of one Hadi Behera is corroborated by PW 1, when he stated that on receiving information from the petitioner about her being driven out of her husband's house, he went to the house of Hadi Behera and accompanied her to the house of her father. There is no acceptable explanation from the side of the opposite party as to why after the date of her marriage, after residing in the house of the opposite party only for few days, she had left the house of her husband of her own accord. Normally, a newly married wife would not be leaving the house of her husband voluntarily unless there is a strong reason for the same. So the probabilities in the case also support the version of the petitioner that she was forcibly driven out of the house of the opposite party. The evidence of the PWs. shows that a Panchayat was held subsequently for attempting a reconciliation between the parties. Ext. 2, duly proved by PW 1, is a written undertaking given by the opposite party, which not only proves that there was such Panchayat but also shows that the opposite party, while admitting before the 'Bhadralogs' that he had earlier misbehaved with the petitioner, had undertaken that he would behave with her properly in future, failing which the dowry articles received from her would be returned to her. The reliable evidence of the PWs. shows that even though such a Panchayat was held, the opposite party was not prepared to receive her back. That the petitioner has all along been residing in the house of her parents is not disputed by the opposite party. There is no reliable evidence from the side of the opposite party to show that the opposite party has made a genuine attempt to invite the petitioner to his house to lead a family life with her. In view of the conduct of the opposite party, the petitioner had no other alternative except to reside with her parents and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned S.D.J.M. was justified in awarding maintenance in favour of the petitioner.