Jajnesh Bachaspati Sahoo @ Sahu vs Santilata Sahoo

K.R. Mohapatra, J

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Judgment dated 6th December, 2017 (Annexure-7) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur in Criminal Proceeding No.7 of 2011 (arising out of Cr.P. No.502 of 2006 of J.F.C., Cuttack) is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the Opposite Party from the date of filing of the application, i.e., from 6th September, 2006.

Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the marital relationship between the parties is not disputed. However, the Opposite Party left the matrimonial home voluntarily without any reasonable cause and she was leading an adulterous life. It is also submitted that during pendency of this RPFAM, the Petitioner came to know that the Opposite Party is serving as a lecturer in Education in Chitalo Degree Mahavidyalaya, Jajpur. There is a decree of divorce between the parties in C.P. No.432 of 1999. After appeal period was over, the Petitioner has married to one, Bhanumati Sahoo and they have been blessed with two children, namely, Jajnashree Sahoo and Chirnjibi Sahoo. Since the Opposite Party left the matrimonial home voluntarily and she has sufficient means to maintain herself, she is not entitled to any maintenance. Learned Judge, Family Court did not consider these aspects and passed the impugned order under Annexure-7. Hence, the same is liable to the set aside.

Mr. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the Opposite Party submits that the Petitioner had obtained an ex parte decree of divorce in C.P. No.432 of 1999. Of course, the Opposite Party has not challenged the same in appeal. However, a divorced wife, who does not have any sufficient means to maintain herself is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. He also submits that before learned Family Court, the Petitioner although took a plea that the Opposite Party left the matrimonial home voluntarily and she was leading an adulterous life, but he failed to establish the same by adducing cogent evidence. Before learned Judge, Family Court, the Petitioner had also taken a stand that the Opposite Party was working at St. Josef School at Kuakhia. But no document to that effect could be produced. It present, the Petitioner is taking a different stand stating that the Opposite Party is serving as a lecturer in Education in Chitalo Degree Mahavidyalaya, Jajpur. Thus, the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner does not have any basis and warrants no consideration. It is further submitted that the quantum of maintenance granted in favour of the Opposite Party is very meager taking into consideration her need. Hence, learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur has committed no error in passing the impugned order under Annexure-7.

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that although the Petitioner had taken a plea that the Opposite Party left the matrimonial home voluntarily and she was leading an adulterous life with one, Nityananda Moharana, but none of the plea could be established by adducing cogent evidence in support of the same. A stand was taken by the Petitioner to the effect that the Opposite Party was serving at St. Josef School at Kuakhia. But, no evidence could also be adduced in support of the same. In course of argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner raises a plea that the Opposite Party is serving as a lecturer in Education in Chitalo Degree Mahavidyalaya, Jajpur.

Since this Court is in seisin of the petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, new plea taken by the Petitioner at this stage cannot be taken into consideration. Admittedly, the Opposite Party had married to the Petitioner. But, subsequently, their marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce in C.P. No.432 of 1999. Of course, a divorced wife having no sufficient means to maintain herself is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. Further taking into consideration the materials on record, learned Judge, Family Court directed the Petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the Opposite Party, which I do not find to be unreasonable.

Accordingly, the RPFAM being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

……………………………..