Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 552 (ORI)

Parbati Giri v. Harihar Giri

2004-12-21

A.K.SAMANTARAY, P.K.TRIPATHY

body2004
JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred as against the judgment delivered on October, 29, 1999 by the Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Civil Proceeding No.31 of 1999. 2. Petitioner before the Court below is the appellant. She instituted the proceeding under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, claiming for maintenance from the Respondents on the assertion that she is the legally married wife of the Respondent. We see from the impugned judgment as well as the application filed by the appellant in the Court below that she claimed of a temple marriage by exchange of garlands and through that the legal status of a wife in accordance with the provision of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. She narrated the events by saying that a day before the Viswakarma Puja of 1995 she and the Respondent, because of the love affair, went to Siva Temple, exchanged garlands and lived as husband and wife in the place where the petitioner has domiciled. Notwithstanding the intermittent dispute between the two, she helped him by lending a sum of Rs.35,000/- from her savings to enable the Respondent to purchase a truck and some time after purchase of that truck the Respondent deserted her and stayed with another woman on the pretext that he had married the said woman. In February, 1999 when the Respondent had come to Rourkela, petitioner approached him for resumption of the conjugal life and when the Respondent declined she reported the matter at the Mahila Police-station in Sector-3, Rourkela and because of that a G.R. Case has been registered against the Respondents for the offence under Sections 498-A/494/406, I.P.C. She asserted that the monthly income of the Respondent was Rs.20,000/- and she needed Rs.3,000/- towards her monthly maintenance. 3. Respondent entered appearance and contested the pro¬ceeding. In his written statement, he denied the allegations of the petitioner and advanced the plea of still being a bachelor and being not the owner of a Truck or having a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-. He also denied to the status of the petitioner as his wife to claim maintenance from him. 4. Learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela recorded the evidence adduced by the parties on the issues. In that process, petitioner examined six witnesses including herself as P.W. No.1 and the Respondent examined three witnesses including himself as D.W. No.1. He also denied to the status of the petitioner as his wife to claim maintenance from him. 4. Learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela recorded the evidence adduced by the parties on the issues. In that process, petitioner examined six witnesses including herself as P.W. No.1 and the Respondent examined three witnesses including himself as D.W. No.1. A few joint photos of the petitioner and Respondent were introduced into evidence as Exts. X to X-2 and a daily deposit account in ‘Sahara India’ as Ext. 1. Such documentary evidence was tendered by the petitioner. 5. On assessment of such evidence on record vis-a-vis the pleadings of the parties, learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela, found that the petitioner has utterly failed to prove her status as the wife of the Respondent. In that respect, he found the evidence of P.Ws 2 to 6 to be contradictory in nature in support of the claim of the petitioner that a marriage was performed in the Siva Temple on a day before the Viswakarma Puja of 1995. He also found that on a joint reading of the evidence of the wit¬nesses from the side of the petitioner she has utterly failed to prove that she was wife of the Respondent and under such circum¬stance, she is not entitled to claim maintenance or to get main¬tenance. In that respect, learned Judge, Family Court, has also referred to and relied on the ratio in the case of Surjit Kaur -v. Garja Singh and others, reported in A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1135. 6. We granted a patient hearing and allowed her to place entire evidence on record. We ourselves also perused such evi¬dence so also the pleadings of the parties and after due consideration of the same, we find that the claim of the appel¬lant must fail not only because of the reasonings which have been correctly stated in the impugned judgment but also in view of the provision of law in Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Main¬tenance Act, 1955. It is peculiar to note that petitioner did not indicate in her application what was the form of marriage and whether such a form of marriage is prevalent under law and custom and whether such type of garlanding and co-habitation amounts to conferring a legal status to a woman like petitioner. It is peculiar to note that petitioner did not indicate in her application what was the form of marriage and whether such a form of marriage is prevalent under law and custom and whether such type of garlanding and co-habitation amounts to conferring a legal status to a woman like petitioner. Lack of pleading in that respect if necessary in the interest of justice, could have been ignored, provided requisite evidence in that respect would have been available. Her satisfaction in proving of living together for a year has not conferred on her the status of a legally married wife. In that respect, bare perusal of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and with Section 5 and 7 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are sufficient and a further discussion is not necessary to record the finding that petitioner has failed to prove her status as the wife of the Respondent. Thus, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from the Respondent under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Main¬tenance Act, 1956. Such a view has rightly taken by learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela and we do not find any fault in that judgment. The appeal is thus dismissed. Under the above noted facts and circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs of litigation. Hearing-fee is assessed at contested scale. Appeal dismissed.