RANKANIDHI BEHERA Vs. JAYANTI SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the aforesaid revisions have been heard analogously and disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) Opposite party No. 1 for herself and on behalf of opposite parties 2 and 3 who were the minor children, filed petition under Section 125(3), Cr. P.C.claiming for maintenance from the petitioner on the ground that she and opposite parties 2 and 3 born out of the wedlock were ill-treated and deserted by the petitioner though he is capable of maintaining them having sufficient means. That application was registered as Crl. Misc. Case No. 74/89 in the Court of SDJM, Jajpur. Later on it was transferred to the file of Judge, Family Court, Cuttack and registered as Crl. Proceeding No. 388 of 1991. Petitioner contested that case. In his show cause he admitted the relationship, but refused to pay maintenance on the ground that opposite party No. 1 is leading an adulterous life with one Mina Behera and voluntarily deserted him. In support of their respective cases both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. Opposite Parties examined O.P.No. 1 as P.W.1 and another witness namely Kapila Ch. Sahu as P.W.2. The petitioner examined himself as O.P.W.No. 2 and his mother as O.P.W.1. He also relied upon postal receipts vide Exts. 1 to 8 to prove that opposite party No. 1 was residing with said Mina Behera. On assessment of evidence in record, learned Judge, Family Court recorded the findings that the inter se relationship being an admitted factor, petitioner failed to prove the allegations of O.P.No. 1 leading an adulterous life and on the contrary at the time of adducing evidence, he offered to maintain the opposite parties if they rejoin him. In that connection he further recorded a finding that opposite party No. 1 apprehending danger to her life was not willing to join with her husband who, according to her, in the meantime had accepted a second wife. Learned Judge, Family Court also took into consideration the factum of desertion, non-providing of maintenance in the intervening period, the quantum of income of the petitioner as a Senior Stenographer working in the State Secretariat and allowed a monthly maintenance of Rs. 50 to the opposite party No. 1 and at the rate of Rs. 200/- to each of the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3. That order was passed by the Judge, Family Court on 9-9-96 granting the monthly maintenance in the aforesaid manner with effect from the date of application i.e. 26-4-1989. That order has been challenged in the abovenoted Criminal RevisionNo. 444 of 1996.

(3.) Due to non-payment of maintenance amount by the petitioner in accordance with the judgment dt/- 9-9-1996, about two months thereafter Opp. Party No.1 filed application under Section 125 (3), Cr. P.C.for realisation of the arrear maintenance and that application was registered as Criminal Proceeding No. 724 of 1996. After receipt of the notice to show cause, as it reveals from the Order dt/- 12-5-1997 (impugned order), petitioner challenged maintainability of that application on the ground of limitation relating to the period beyond 12 months from the date of application. After hearing the parties, learned Judge, Family Court vide impugned order dt. 12-5-1997 rejected that show cause filed by the petitioner on the ground that two months after the judgment the Opp. Parties filed the petition for realisation of the arrear maintenance and therefore, that application was legally sustainable. That order has been challenged in Crl. Revision No. 214 of 1997.