Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 756 (ORI)

Sanjib Kumar Parida v. Sukanti Dash

2018-08-24

J.P.DAS

body2018
JUDGMENT J.P. DAS, J. - This is an application under Section 19 of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 assailing the legality of the order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Proceeding No.186 of 2013 directing the present petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.13,500/- per month from the date of application i.e. 13.12.2013 till the date of order i.e. 29.11.2017 and to pay Rs.15,000/- thereafter. 2. The present opposite party filed the application under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. submitting that she came in contact with the present petitioner in the year 2008 and developed relationship with him. Thereafter, their marriage was performed in the temple of Dakhinakali, Birapratappur in the district of Puri. After the marriage, they went to hotel at Puri and also visited different places of State and stayed in different hotels as husband and wife. Coming back to Bhubaneswar, they stayed in a flat at Bibekananda Marg, Bhubaneswar. Subsequently, some differences arose between the two and the opposite party came to know that the petitioner had an earlier wife and a daughter. She further alleged that the petitioner misbehaved and assaulted her and ultimately left her company in the month of October, 2013 whereafter she has to stay in distress having no source of income for livelihood and maintenance. Hence, she claimed a monthly maintenance of rupees one lakh from the present petitioner-husband submitting that he is a man of sufficient means. 3. The present petitioner as opposite party entering appearance, denied the factum of marriage and pleaded that on the request of the petitioner, he had given her some financial assistance but taking advantage of her acquaintance with the family of the opposite party she created a story of marriage, managing to get some photographs. The opposite party-husband also submitted that he had a wife and a daughter of 9-year-old, apart from the fact that the petitioner-wife was having her own business with substantial income and Bank balances. He also alleged that the petitioner-wife was living in a live-in-relationship with another person at her given address. 4. The petitioner-wife examined herself besides three witnesses and the opposite party-husband examined himself besides two other witnesses. A number of documents were brought into evidence on behalf of both the sides. 5. He also alleged that the petitioner-wife was living in a live-in-relationship with another person at her given address. 4. The petitioner-wife examined herself besides three witnesses and the opposite party-husband examined himself besides two other witnesses. A number of documents were brought into evidence on behalf of both the sides. 5. The learned trial court on analyzing the oral as well as documentary evidence placed before it held that the petitioner was the wife of the opposite party and the opposite party-husband was liable to pay her maintenance. Considering the materials as to the financial status of both the parties, learned trial court has passed the impugned order of maintenance as stated hereinbefore. 6. The petitioner in the present application has assailed the findings of the trial court with the main contention that there being no convincing material as to the marriage of the present petitioner with the opposite party, the learned trial court erroneously reached the conclusion that there was a marriage between the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence of the witnesses who deposed about the marriage on behalf of the opposite party-wife had a lot of contradictions, more specifically as to the duration and time of the marriage, vis-a-vis, the pleadings of the petitioner-wife before the trial court as to their consummation of the marriage in a hotel at Puri on the same day after performance of the marriage in a temple. 7. Placing the evidence of the said witnesses, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the versions of those witnesses are so very discrepant that it should not have been believed as to their truthfulness about the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party. It was also submitted that the opposite party-wife stated different things at different places as regards her relationship with the present petitioner and hence the plea of the marriage or their living as husband and wife was nothing but a myth. In this respect, it was submitted that in the petition filed before the Family Court, the opposite party submitted that she came in a contact with the present petitioner in the year 2008 and their marriage was performed in the year 2013. In this respect, it was submitted that in the petition filed before the Family Court, the opposite party submitted that she came in a contact with the present petitioner in the year 2008 and their marriage was performed in the year 2013. But, subsequently, the opposite party wife has lodged an F.I.R. before the Police Station alleging against the present petitioner wherein she has mentioned that she came to know the present petitioner in the year 2012. 8. As seen from the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has discussed in detail the evidence led on behalf of both the parties. Taking into consideration a large number of documents including photographs filed on behalf of the petitioner, the learned trial court reached the conclusion that the petitioner was the legally married wife of the opposite party namely, the present petitioner. All the documents and the specific statements have been taken into consideration and such a finding has been reached by the learned trial court. It has also been observed that in a proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C. the legal validity of a marriage is not a question to be considered if there are sufficient materials to presume that both the parties have lived as husband and wife. 9. In the instant case, the marriage has been specifically pleaded by the wife and oral as well as a number of documentary evidence have been placed in support of such pleadings. It was submitted on behalf of the present petitioner that there was some business transactions between the parties and the opposite party-wife could manage to take some photographs in some such occasions and started black-mailing the petitioner filing police cases and ultimately claimed to be his wife and filed the case for maintenance. But going through the findings reached by the learned trial court, analyzing the evidence of both the parties placed before it, I do not find any convincing substance in the contention made on behalf of the petitioner so as to differ from the view taken by the learned trial court that there was a marriage between the present petitioner and the opposite party as per Hindu rites and customs and there was no material before the court to presume that the petitioner-wife was aware about the earlier marital status of the opposite party-husband prior to their marriage solemnized in the temple. 10. 10. Once it is found and held that the petitioner is the legally married wife of the opposite party-husband, on the admitted facts that the petitioner refused to accept her as his wife and deserted her, the claim of maintenance becomes justified. 11. So far as quantum of maintenance and financial status of the opposite party-wife are concerned, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party-wife is a business woman having better source of income than the present petitioner. She is C and F Agent of one Company getting Rs.60,000/- per month excluding all expenses. She is also the proprietor of one firm whereas the petitioner is merely PHED contractor. It was also submitted that taking advantage of the relationship with the petitioner, the opposite party blackmailed him and has taken huge amount of money from him on different occasions. It was also submitted that the opposite party is staying in a live-in-relationship with one Bipin Behari Ray in her given address and in the past had threatened the present petitioner demanding money for which the petitioner had to lodge an F.I.R. at Dhauli P.S. In this regard, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party-wife that the petitioner-husband was carrying on some of his business in the name of the present opposite party-wife when they had relationship and also after marriage and in fact the present opposite party-wife has no relationship with those business firms which were actually owned and managed by the petitioner-husband. The learned trial court has also discussed in detail the submissions and the counter submissions made on behalf of the parties in this respect and taking into consideration the admission of the opposite party-husband that he is a B-Class contractor and claimed to have advanced huge amount of money to the opposite party at different times, the learned trial court reached the conclusion that the present petitioner-husband is a man of means and there being no substantial material to establish the income of the opposite party-wife the petitioner was liable to pay the maintenance. Observing that the wife is entitled to enjoy the status in accordance with the financial status of the opposite party-husband, and taking into consideration, the fact that the present petitioner has a family with a daughter, the learned trial court has awarded the amount of maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of order and Rs.13,500/- per month from the date of application i.e. 13.12.2013 till the date of order dt. 29.11.2017. I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the findings reached by the learned trial court in this respect. However, considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that he has a family and a daughter and has paid some amounts to the opposite party-wife during their relationship, the amount of maintenance for the period from the date of application till the date of the order @ 13, 500/- per month as awarded by the learned trial court is modified to Rs.10,000/-. The amount of maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- from the date of order stands confirmed. The R.P.F.A.M. is accordingly disposed of. R.P.F.A.M. disposed of.