Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 489 (ORI)

MANJUSHREE DALEI v. JUGAL KISHORE DALEI

2002-08-02

B.PANIGRAHI, P.K.MISRA

body2002
JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - The wife-respondent in an matrimonial case u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in Civil Proceeding No. 66 of 1994 is the appellant in this case. 2. The factual matrix leading to this appeal is as follows : Both the spouses belong to Kaibarta caste and are governed under the provisions of Hindu Law. Their marriage was solemnised according to their caste, custom and Hindu rites prevalent in their society on 4.3.1984. They led their happy conjugal life till May, 1985. Out of their lawful wedlock, a male child was born one year after their marriage. It is alleged that after the appellant gave birth to a male child, the conjugal happiness was disturbed quite a long and there were frequent dissension, bickering and quarrel between both the spouses. The respondent in this appeal had alleged that the appellant developed extramarital relationship with one Raghunath Dalei, who was the cousin of her husband. When it came to his knowledge, the respondent felt very much humiliated. There was again recurrence of the same incident where the appellant was said to have conceived through her paramour, Raghunath Dalei. So in order to avoid such social taboo, the husband took her to a doctor and got the pregnancy terminated. There was a great deal of unhappiness and disharmony in the family. The appellant filed an application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the husband-respondent in which an order was passed asking the husband to pay Rs. 200/-per month. When the relationship between the spouses became bad to worse, it was impossible for the one to continue to live with the other. 3. The appellant on the contrary filed her written statement before the learned Judge Family Court strongly denying the averments stated by her husband. On the contrary, it was averred by the appellant that her husband demanded further dowry in cash to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- from her parents. When they were unable to pay the same, the appellant was treated very badly and there was frequent quarrel and family dissension on account of non-fulfilment of dowry. 4. From the evidence adduced before the learned Judge, Family Court, we found there has been no specific finding that the appellant was leading an adulterous life. 5. 40,000/- from her parents. When they were unable to pay the same, the appellant was treated very badly and there was frequent quarrel and family dissension on account of non-fulfilment of dowry. 4. From the evidence adduced before the learned Judge, Family Court, we found there has been no specific finding that the appellant was leading an adulterous life. 5. There has been no proof whatsoever led by the husband-respondent that the appellant had been living in adultery continuously. It would not be enough for the respondent-husband to show that the appellant was living in adultery some time past. No relief would be granted to the husband, if it appeared that there is no evidence that the wife was living an adulterous life on the date of filing of the application u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Since the learned Judge, Family Court has not come to a positive finding that the appellant was leading an adulterous life, it would be redundant for us to dilate on such aspect any further. Suffice to say that both the parties are at poles apart and have been living separately for more than a decade and there has been no chance of their living together. Therefore, we hereby confirm the order of divorce but feel that an amount of Rs. 1 lakh should be paid to the appellant for permanent alimony u/s 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. This amount shall be paid by the respondent-husband in three instalments, in shape of F.D.R. of any Nationalised Bank in the name of the respondent-wife from which monthly interest shall be paid to her. The first instalment shall be deposited on or before 10th September, 2002, the 2nd instalment of Rs. 35,000/-(Rupees thirty five thousand) on or before December, 2002 and the 3rd instalment of Rs. 30,000/- (thirty thousand) by the 10th March, 2003. Till the entire amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is deposited in the name of the appellant-wife, the husband-respondent shall pay Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred) per month as monthly maintenance. The said amount of monthly maintenance shall be paid by the husband-respondent by the 10th of each succeeding month. The amount so deposited under the three receipts in the name of the appellant shall not be disbursed to her before maturity. 300/- (Rupees three hundred) per month as monthly maintenance. The said amount of monthly maintenance shall be paid by the husband-respondent by the 10th of each succeeding month. The amount so deposited under the three receipts in the name of the appellant shall not be disbursed to her before maturity. But in the event of any serious ailment, she can apply for premature withdrawal subject to the permission from the Learned Judge, Family Court after due notice to the husband-respondent. Save and except the above condition, the amount shall not be allowed to be withdrawn by the appellant. In the event of her re-marriage, the appellant-wife shall forfeit her right even for maintenance. In the event of the appellant-wife's death, her son shall be entitled to withdraw the said amount. The appellant shall not be permitted to raise any kind of loan against the fixed deposit so made by the respondent. The appellant, if she so desires, can meet her son and in that event, the husband-respondent shall not create any hindrances for the same. 6. With the above observations and directions, the Civil Appeal is disposed of. It is made clear that if the husband duly comply with the above directions, the proceeding u/s 125, Cr.P.C. shall also be treated as closed, 7. There shall no order as to costs. P. K. Misra, J. I agree.