DURYODHAN SAMAL Vs. GURUBARI SAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a primary school teacher, having been directed to pay maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs. 150.00 per month in a proceeding under Sec. 125 Code Criminal Procedure has preferred this revision. This is an unfortunate case where both parties are well advanced in age, the petitioner being about 51 years and the opposite party about 48 years. The marriage between the parties took place about thirty-seven years back and out of their wedlock ten children were born of whom eight are living and of such children the eldest daughter is married and some other children are also major. One of the sons, aged twenty-five years, has also been examined as OPW 2. The opposite party in her petition under Sec. 125 Criminal Procedure Code made out the case that since about two years back, the petitioner suspected her character, rebuked her on flimsy grounds in obscene language and assaulted her many times and though she, for the sake of prestige and dignity of the family, tolerated such actions of the petitioner for some time and also received medical treatment for the assault, yet was driven out by the petitioner from her marital home for which reason she is residing with her brother at Jhumpura. Her effort at reconciliation through Panchayats and caste people as also relations having failed as the petitioner refused to maintain her, she came before the Court.

(2.) The petitioner in his objection refuted the averments and maintained that the opposite party had undergone hysterectomy without his knowledge and that the operation had created indifference in her mind leading her to be cynic, unmindful of the family affairs, disloyalty to the husband to the extent of causing violence and that to cover such acts she had been taking shelter in the houses of her brother, sister as also of the married daughter. The petitioner had tried his best to reconcile. the matter, but his attempts had failed. He never assaulted the opposite party nor drove her out of the house and that since the opposite party deserted him without any just cause he had served a registered notice on her through his advocate on 15.10.1985 urging her to come back and that the proceeding under Sec. 125 Code Criminal Procedure was started by her only as a counterblast to the registered notice. The notice has been proved as Ext. A in the case.

(3.) The learned S.D.J.M. on consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion of the petitioner having ill-treated the opposite party by way of assault for which she had left the house and being of such opinion fixed the maintenance as mentioned earlier.