Krupasindhu Behera vs Smt. Satyabati Behera and Another

I.M. Quddusi, J.—This petition u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Code of Criminal Procedure") has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 7.4.2001 passed by the Learned S.D.J.M., Udala directing him to pay maintenance to the opposite parties on the application filed by the O. Ps. u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure By the said order the Petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 350/- to opposite party No. 1, and Rs. 300/- to opposite party No. 2 per month as maintenance from the date of filing of the C.M.C. No. 90 of 1998. Challenging the said order the Petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 71/17 of 2001 which was dismissed by order dated 13.5.2003 passed by Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Court, Baripada.

The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner had married opposite party No. 1 on 1.5.95 as per Hindu rites and after the marriage, she started to live with the Petitioner in his house as a legally wedded wife in the family of the Petitioner, where his parents and sisters were living. It is also alleged that the father of O.P. No. 1 had paid a cash of Rs. 5000/- besides giving one gold ring, one Hercules cycle and other house-hold articles at the time of marriage as dowry to the Petitioner. In spite of that, Petitioner and his family members demanded dowry of Rs. 15,000/- from the parents of opposite party No. 1. When she expressed her parents'' inability to fulfil the aforesaid demands, the Petitioner and his family members subjected her to physical ill treatment and put her into hard work. One year after the marriage, opposite party No. 2 was born in the year 1996. But behaviour of the family members of the Petitioner regarding demand of dowry and putting her to hard work remained unchanged and ultimately opp. party No. 1 was kicked out from the house of her husband. As she was not allowed to enter into the house thereafter, she started to live with her parents and thereafter filed an application for maintenance. She had mentioned in her application that she was unable to maintain herself and her minor son who was with her. The Petitioner is working as a cook at Baripada Hotel and is getting monthly income of Rs. 3000/- per month. Besides this, he has got five manas of land and he has also a rice business from which he earns further income of Rs. 20,000/-. Further it has also been brought out in the evidence that the Petitioner was staying with another lady, namely, Puspalata.

Learned S.D.J.M. after going through the evidence came to the conclusion that opposite party No. 1 was justified in refusing to live with the Petitioner and therefore directed payment of maintenance as mentioned above.

Against the said order, a revision was preferred by the Petitioner, which was also dismissed by the ADJ (FTC) affirming the finding given by the Learned S.D.J.M.

Feeling aggrieved the instant petition u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed. Learned S.D.J.M. after considering the evidence available or record held that the husband (petitioner in the instant petition) had neglected to maintain the opposite parties i.e., his wife and son, (applicants before the Trial Court), and thus there was sufficient cause for the opp. parties to approach the Court for their maintenance. The Petitioner having sufficient means was liable to maintain his wife and son.

Coming to the aforesaid finding the S.D.J.M. awarded maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 350/- and to the son at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month.

I see no good reason to interfere with the finding given by the Learned S.D.J.M. He has appreciated the evidence available on record to find out the facts and circumstances existing in the case and also was satisfied about the ingredients of Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure for awarding the maintenance indicated above and Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Baripada has confirmed the finding of the Learned S.D.J.M. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no cogent reason to disturb the concurrent findings u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure

The application fails and is dismissed.

Application dismissed.