Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 690 (ORI)

Sushanta Kumar Sahu v. Alibha Rani Sabat @ Sahu

2018-07-26

J.P.DAS

body2018
JUDGMENT J.P. DAS, J. - This common order shall dispose of both the aforesaid applications filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act being directed against the order dated 28.10.2016 passed in Criminal Proceeding No.188 of 2014 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur, Ganjam under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. In RPFAM 237 of 2016 the husband has assailed the granting of maintenance whereas in RPFAM No.37 of 2017 the wife has prayed for grant of maintenance from the date of application instead of date of order as has been directed in the impugned judgment. 2. The wife as the petitioner filed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court with the submissions that she married the opposite party-husband on 27.04.2009.She alleged that barring a period of about six months, at the initial stage, of happy conjugal life, she was regularly ill-treated and tortured by her husband other in-laws for about five years. She further alleged that after marriage, she learnt that her husband was a drunkard, and for her ill-treatment, her parents and other relations tried to settle the dispute by negotiation, but that lasted for only a few days, whereafter against the petitioner-wife had to face the ordeals. She submitted that with a hope of better understanding, she continued in her matrimonial house, but since the ill-treatment continued with threatening to kill her, she left her matrimonial house on 10.07.2014 and lodged one F.I.R. before the Mahila Police Station, Berhampur, pursuant to which a case under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and other allied offences was registered. She filed the application for maintenance on 26.08.2014 with the submissions that since after leaving the matrimonial house, she has been staying with her parents and the opposite party-husband did not care to look after her. She further submitted that the opposite party-husband was earning monthly salary of Rs.35,000/- and hence, she claimed an amount of maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month, since she had no other source of income for her sustenance. 3. The opposite party-husband entering appearance denied the allegations of ill-treatment and torture and counter-alleged that the petitioner-wife had no respect towards her in-laws and was regularly threatening them to implicate in criminal proceedings. He further alleged that the petitioner-wife used to go to her parents house regularly for a long period. 3. The opposite party-husband entering appearance denied the allegations of ill-treatment and torture and counter-alleged that the petitioner-wife had no respect towards her in-laws and was regularly threatening them to implicate in criminal proceedings. He further alleged that the petitioner-wife used to go to her parents house regularly for a long period. The opposite party-husband also pleaded that being disgusted with the attitude and behaviour of the petitioner-wife, the father of the opposite party-husband committed suicide. It was also submitted that apart from filing a criminal proceeding, the opposite-party-wife had also filed another application under the P.W.D.V. Act. It was also submitted on behalf of the opposite party-husband that since the petitioner-wife regularly stayed in her parents house, he had filed an application for judicial separation, but, it was subsequently withdrawn as not pressed on the intervention of well-wishers. 4. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their contentions and the learned trial Court on consideration of the materials placed on record allowed the application and directed the opposite party-husband to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner-wife from the date of the order i.e. 28.10.2016. 5. In course of hearing of the present application, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-husband that the learned trial court has ignored the material evidence placed on behalf of the opposite party-husband as to the attitude and behaviour of the petitioner-wife and her desertion. It was also submitted that the trial court has also ignored the fact that the petitioner-wife is having a degree of M.B.A. and is quite capable of maintaining herself, apart from the fact that the opposite party-husband having lost his job, has no income to provide maintenance to the petitioner-wife. 6. Per contra, it was submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife of other application that the opposite-party husband has sufficient means and has neglected his wife since the date she was forced to leave her matrimonial house. It was submitted that apart from drawing a salary of Rs.35,000/-, the opposite party-husband has also landed properties and other sources of income having no other responsibility. Thus, it was submitted that the maintenance as has been awarded by the learned trial court should have been from the date of application instead of being from the date of order. 7. The marriage between the parties is not disputed. Thus, it was submitted that the maintenance as has been awarded by the learned trial court should have been from the date of application instead of being from the date of order. 7. The marriage between the parties is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the applicant-wife has left her matrimonial house in the year 2014. It is also seen from the record that proceedings have been filed between the parties and effort for conciliation has failed. The applicant-wife pleaded that she was forced to leave her matrimonial house due to ill-treatment and torture meted out towards her whereas it was submitted on behalf of the opposite party-husband that the applicant-wife is arrogant in nature and had no respect towards her in-laws, for which, the father of the opposite party-husband committed suicide. It is further submitted that the applicant-wife left the company of the opposite party-husband out of her own and filed different proceedings to harass and humiliate her in-laws. 8. In course of trial three witnesses were examined on behalf of each of the parties and they deposed in support of the respective claims of the parties for whom they appeared. It was brought out in evidence that although there was different meetings to settle the dispute between the husband and wife, still no document was prepared in that regard. Similarly, although the opposite party-husband claimed that his father committed suicide due to torture and arrogant behaviour of the petitioner-wife and had also left behind a suicidal note, still nothing has been brought on record in support of such contentions. Thus these submissions were simply oath against oath. Be that as it may, the marriage having remained admitted and the applicant-wife staying separately with a failure of conciliation, the husband is liable to maintain the wife. 9. Now, coming to the amount of maintenance, some documents were filed on behalf of the applicant-wife that the petitioner being an employee of Roland Institute of Technology was drawing a salary of about Rs. 30,000/-. It was further brought on record that after quitting the said job, the opposite party-husband worked as Lecturer in Physics in Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Berhampur and got a salary of Rs.35,000/- per month. 30,000/-. It was further brought on record that after quitting the said job, the opposite party-husband worked as Lecturer in Physics in Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Berhampur and got a salary of Rs.35,000/- per month. As against this, some documents have been brought into the evidence on behalf of the opposite party-husband showing that he has been relieved from his job in Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Berhampur, since First March, 2016.This document has not been contravened on behalf of the applicant-wife. Of course, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-wife that the documents have been manufactured by the opposite party-husband, but as seen from the L.C.R. original documents have been filed apart from the documents and informations obtained under the R.T.I. Act. Although it was submitted on behalf of the applicant-wife that the opposite party-husband has landed properties and other sources of income still no material has been brought on record in support of such contentions. However, the materials and circumstances show that the opposite party-husband was capable of earning an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month. No reason has been assigned as to why he quit his job. 10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as stated above, I am of the view that an amount of Rs.8,000/- as maintenance per month from the date of order of the learned trial court would be appropriate in all fairness of things. I do not find any material or acceptable submission in support of the contentions made on behalf of the applicant-wife that the award of maintenance should have been from the date of application, which, as per the settled position of law, should always be supported with strong reason. 11. Accordingly, conforming the order of maintenance awarded by the learned trial court, it is directed that the amount of maintenance is modified from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month to be paid from the date of order as has been directed by the learned trial court. Both the applications are disposed of accordingly. Applications disposed of.