Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 537 (ORI)

Khageswar Bisoi v. Aruna Bisoi

2008-07-15

A.S.NAIDU, B.P.RAY

body2008
ORDER 15.7.2008 — Heard. 2. The order dated 20.11.06 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Talcher in MAT. Case No.53 of 2004 is assailed by the appellant U/s.28 of Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent-Aruna Bisoi had married the appellant according to Hindu rites and customs. Out of their wedlock, a daughter and a son were born. The daughter is now aged about 13 years and the son 7 years. 3. According to respondent-wife, her husband started neglecting her and even mentally and physically tortured her. Consequently, she had to leave her matrimonial house and to come and stay with her parents. In spite of best efforts as the hus¬band did not bother about the wife and children, a petition was filed U/s.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the wife praying to pass a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The husband appeared before the Court below and filed a written statement denying all the allegations. According to him, he was ready to maintain his wife and children. In order to substantiate the case, both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing all the evidence both oral and documentary, the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Talcher, arrived at a conclusion that the wife was sub¬jected to mental torture and that she was entitled to decree for divorce on the ground that the appellant-husband and his parents had treated the wife with cruelty after solemnization of the marriage. Consequently, a decree for divorce was passed. 4. Considering the properties and income of the appellant-husband, who was working as a fitter-helper in Mahanadi Coal Fields as well as the age and requirement of the wife and two children, the Court below awarded a maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to be paid by the appellant-husband. Being aggrieved by the said order, the husband has approached this Court. 5. It is pertinent to mention here that the order of divorce has not been assailed by any of the parties. Thus, the only question which needs to be determined in this case is as to whether a sum of Rs.5000/- as monthly maintenance is just and proper or not. 6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, it is not possible for him to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- per month. Thus, the only question which needs to be determined in this case is as to whether a sum of Rs.5000/- as monthly maintenance is just and proper or not. 6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, it is not possible for him to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- per month. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-wife force¬fully submits that the appellant is getting a handsome salary from the M.C.L. That apart, he had received about Rs.1,00,000/- towards dowry and about Rs.1,0,000/- towards wearing apparels and other utensils. On the basis of such circumstances, it is stated that for decent living of a wife and two growing children in these hard days a sum of Rs.5000/- is just for the time being. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. We have also perused the evidence both oral and documen¬tary. Fact remains, the respondent-wife has to maintain herself and so also two children; a daughter and a son, who are growing. It is a well-known fact that in these hard days substantial money is necessary for up-keeping of young children. Considering the above and the further fact that the peti¬tioner is gainfully employed as a fitter-helper in the M.C.L. and is getting a handsome salary, this Court feels that there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Talcher. This Court accordingly dismisses the appeal. Appeal dismissed.