Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 216 (ORI)

Minati Dixit v. Ajaya Kumar Dixit

2003-03-07

L.MOHAPATRA

body2003
JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — This revision has been filed challeng¬ing the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Criminal Proceeding No. 264 of 1999 for enhancement of the quan¬tum of maintenance granted by the Family Court. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she married to the opposite party on 25.5.1996 according to Hindu rites and custom and led a conjugal life. It is alleged by the petitioner that the opposite party and his family members not being satisfied with the dowry articles received at the time of marriage, demanded cash of Rs. 40,000/- for purchasing a motor cycle and also started illtreating her due to non-fulfilment of the demand. It is also the case of the petitioner that the opposite party is having illicit relationship with his sister-in-law (brother’s wife) and neglected her. Due to the ill-treatment and torture, the peti¬tioner had to leave the house and approached the village commit¬tee and also lodged an F.I.R. in the local police station alleg¬ing commission of offence under Section 498-A of the Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Since the local police did not take any action, another F.I.R. was lodged in the Mahila Police Station, Cuttack. Her further case is that the opposite party earns Rs. 4,500/- from stationary-cum-betel shop and also Rs. 3,000/- from the landed property. 3. The opposite party in his show cause denied the allega¬tions made against him and the case of the opposite party is that the petitioner prior to her marriage was staying in the house of her brother-in-law Tankadhar Panda and after marriage also she continued to visit the house of said Tankadhar Panda in spite of the objection of the opposite party. It is also alleged by the opposite party that he was assaulted by the said Tankadhar Panda on many occasions in presence of the petitioner and at his in¬stance she started a case against him. So far as income is con¬cerned, the specific case of the opposite party is that he has no shop or house and he worked as a daily labourer and he has no income. The further case of the opposite party is that she left the matrimonial home on her own will and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance. 4. The further case of the opposite party is that she left the matrimonial home on her own will and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance. 4. The learned Judge, Family Court on consideration of the evidence on record found that the petitioner had not left the matrimonial home on her own will and due to circumstances she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and accordingly entitled to maintenance. So far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, the learned Judge, Family Court did not accept the evidence led from the side of the petitioner, and held that the opposite party was working as a daily labourer and accordingly granted maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month. 5. Shri Padhi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the evidence with regard to income of the opposite party is consistent and all the witnesses examined before the Court have stated that the opposite party has income from the betel shop, towards house rent as well as some income from the landed property. The evidence with regard to income of the opposite party being consistent, there was no occasion for the learned Judge, Family Court to hold that the Opposite party was working as daily labourer grant maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. If evidence of the petitioner and other witness¬es examined from her side is accepted, the petitioner should be liable to pay the amount of maintenance claimed by the petition¬er. 6. I have perused the findings of the learned Judge, Family Court as well as the evidence led on both the sides with regard to the income of the Opposite party. Though the petitioner who has been examined as P.W.1 stated in-chief that the Opposite party was running a betel shop, in her cross-examination she has stated that the said shop stands on a Government land and she has no document to show that the Opposite party is owner of the said shop. Similar is the evidence of the other witnesses who have madestatemens that the Opposite party was running a pan shop on a Government land but were not in a position to give any further details thereof. The evidence of the said witnesses to the effect that the Opposite party was the owner of the pan shop and the said shop was standing on a Government land is not supported by P.W.4. The evidence of the said witnesses to the effect that the Opposite party was the owner of the pan shop and the said shop was standing on a Government land is not supported by P.W.4. The said witness in his evidence has stated that the Opposite party has taken the two shop rooms on rent from one Deba Sahoo and was running the betel shop. However, the said Deba Sahoo has denied such fact. In view of such nature of evidence, it can never be said that the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner were consistent in their evidence with regard to the income of the Opposite party. On the other hand, the stand taken by the Opposite party that he was working as a daily labourer appears to be more acceptable. Though in exercise of the revi¬sional jurisdiction this Court is not required to reassess the evidence, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence relating to income of the Opposite party was consistent, I have referred to some part of the evidence. Since this Court also agree with the finding of the learned Judge, Family Court that the Opposite party was working as daily labourer and was earning Rs.40/- to Rs. 50/- per day, I am of the view the quantum of maintenance granted in favour of the petitioner appears to be reasonable and justified and does not require any enhancement. However, it is directed that the maintenance shall be payable from the date of filing of the application. Therefore I do not find any merit in the revision and the same stands dismissed with the above modification. Revision dismissed.