Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 374 (ORI)

Sujit Kumar Giri v. Laxmipriya Manna @ Giri

2009-04-30

M.M.DAS

body2009
JUDGMENT M.M. DAS, J. — The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner-husband’) was the opposite party in Misc. Case No.235 of 2003 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the present opp.party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the wife') claiming mainte¬nance from the petitioner-husband, before the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore. The wife (opposite party herein) alleged that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner-husband and the mar¬riage was solemnized on 27.2.2001 as per Hindu rites and customs at her parent’s house situated at Dubulagadi. After the marriage, she stayed in her matrimonial house located at Mansingh Bazar, Balasore. While residing in her matrimonial house, the parents of the writ petitioner-husband asked her to bring Rs.30,000/- from her father for doing transport business, to which she did not agree. Thereafter, she has alleged that there was ill treatment by the petitioner - husband as well as the parents-in-law and even she was not allowed to go to her parents’ house in any festival. The wife further described in the petition several incidents, which took place between the members of her in-laws family and her parent’s family. She even alleged that there was assault on her. When she objected to the misbehaviour shown to her parents, she (wife) was thereafter left in her parents place with a threat that if she does not bring Rs.30,000/-, the peti¬tioner-husband will marry again. There were several attempts to settle the matter between the families, but were futile. An information to this effect was also lodged in Balasore Town Police Station. As neither maintenance was paid to her nor she was taken back by the petitioner- husband to her matrimonial home, she filed an application for maintenance alleging that the petitioner-husband is earning Rs.20,000/- per month from trans¬port business and Rs.10,000/- per month as a land broker. 2. Upon notice being issued, the petitioner-husband filed his show cause denying all the allegations made by the wife and further pleaded that the opp.Party-wife is not the legally married wife and his marriage was never solemnized with her. According to the petitioner-husband, one Puspalata, daughter of one Ambikesh Mohapatra of village Sarthabindha was married to her on 22.11.2000 at Maninageswar Temple of Bardhanpur following the ‘GANDHARBA’ form of marriage. There was also a deed of declara¬tion made to that effect before the Notary Public, Balasore on 29.11.2000. According to the petitioner-husband, one Puspalata, daughter of one Ambikesh Mohapatra of village Sarthabindha was married to her on 22.11.2000 at Maninageswar Temple of Bardhanpur following the ‘GANDHARBA’ form of marriage. There was also a deed of declara¬tion made to that effect before the Notary Public, Balasore on 29.11.2000. It was, inter alia, pleaded by him that his father and the grand-father of the wife (opposite party herein) became good friends while his father was serving at the Union High School and there was a proposal for marriage between him and the wife-opposite party to which the petitioner-husband did not agree. 3. To decide the case, the learned S.D.J.M. framed three issues, which are as follows :- (i) Whether the petitioner is the legal married wife of the O.P. ? (ii) Whether the O.P. having sufficient means has neglected or refused to maintain the petitioner ? (iii) Whether the petitioner is unable to maintain herself ? 4. The wife-opposite party herein examined as many as five witnesses in support of her case and the petitioner-husband examined two witnesses including himself. The learned S.D.J.M. analyzing the evidence as well as the materials on record came to a finding that the petitioner-husband failed to prove that he got married to one Puspalata prior to the date of marriage be¬tween him and the wife-opposite party. He further held that the petitioner-husband neglected the wife-opposite party and ill treated her for which she was constrained to stay at her parents’ place. Coming to such finding and upon assessment of the income of the petitioner-husband, he allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. directing the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- per month as maintenance with effect from the date of filing of the application. 5. The petitioner-husband being aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court, filed Criminal Revision Petition No.46 of 2006 before the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore, who by his order dated 13.3.2007 dismissed the said revision. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Courts below, the petitioner-husband has filed the present CRLMC under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 6. It appears from the revisional order that the learned Sessions Judge upon meticulously analyzing the evidence on record has confirmed the findings of fact arrived at by the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Courts below, the petitioner-husband has filed the present CRLMC under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 6. It appears from the revisional order that the learned Sessions Judge upon meticulously analyzing the evidence on record has confirmed the findings of fact arrived at by the learned trial Court. The guiding principles for exercising inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are by now well established in the case of Kurukshetra University and anoth¬er v. State of Haryana and another, AIR 1977 SC 2229 , wherein the Supreme Court laid down that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. Such power is to be exercised sparingly with circum¬spection and in the rarest of rare cases. No-doubt in the said case, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case regarding quash¬ing of an F.I.R. 7. It is true that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders, as may be necessary, to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the same has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and it is well settled that the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry with regard to the allegations made in the complaint. The High Court, in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court, should not interfere with the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below, while exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. In the instant case, upon analyzing the evidence on record, both the Courts below have come to the findings that the wife-opposite party herein is the legally married wife of the petitioner-husband and the petitioner-husband has neglected to maintain her for which he is liable to pay maintenance as directed. Therefore, neither I find any infirmity in the said findings nor anything has been brought before me to show that the said findings are not based on materials available on record or are contrary to law. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below. 9. In the result, I do not find any merit in this CRLMC, which is accordingly dismissed. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below. 9. In the result, I do not find any merit in this CRLMC, which is accordingly dismissed. CRLMC dismissed.