The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, proof of marriage, and entitlement to maintenance under the Act.

JUDGMENT

B.P. Ray, J.

1. The Appellant in this appeal filed Under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has challenged the judgment & decree dated 26.08.2002 & 09.09.2002 respectively passed by Learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in C.P. No. 1 of 2001 allowing the Civil Proceedings in which the Appellant was directed to pay Rs. 2000 to Respondent No. 1 (Wife) & Respondent No. 2 (daughter) @ Rs. 1000 each per month towards their maintenance from the date of the application i.e. 03.01.2001.

2. The Respondent No. 1, who was Petitioner in the Court below, had filed an application Under Sections 18 & 20 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 claiming maintenance from Respondent No. 1 (Appellant in this appeal). The case of the Respondent No. 1 is that both the Appellant & Respondent No. 1 are Hindu by Caste & they are governed by Hindu Law. Their marriage was solemnized at Itabhatta, Bandhamunda in presence of their relations & well-wishers as per the customs & rites prevalent in Santal Caste of Sarana Community in the year 1982. After marriage, both the parties stayed at Balijodi, Rourkela where the marriage was consummated & in the year 1985 Respondent No. 2 was born out of their wed-lock. After birth of Respondent No. 2, it is alleged, the Appellant started ill-treatment & neglected both the Respondents (Petitioners in the Court below) & they were forcibly sent to the parental house of Respondent No. 1. The Respondents having deprived of their basic amenities of life i.e. food & shelter, were subjected to physical torture. It is further alleged that the Respondents while undergoing the above experience in the house of the Appellant their miseries increased when the Appellant used to return home at late night in drunken state of mind & used to abuse the Respondent No. 1 in filthy language & assaulted her. It is further stated that in the year 1987 the Appellant brought a mistress, named as 'Malo' (Respondent No. 2 in the Court below) from Matiatola, Nayadera near Jalda, Rourkela. The said 'Malo' was deserted by her previous husband having four children. After the arrival of pro-forma Respondent No. 3, the Respondents 1 & 2 were deprived of all sorts of amenities & were tortured & ultimately they were forced to leave the house of the Appellant & they resided in the parental home of Respondent No. 1 in the aforementioned village. It is stated that the desertion of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 by the Appellant was pre-planed & was at the behest of pro-forma Respondent No. 3. It was further stated that attempts were made for settlement of difference between the Appellant & Respondent No. 1 by holding Panchayats & no fruitful result was achieved & ultimately on 02.03.2000 the Respondent No. 1 & her child-Respondent No. 2 were thrown out of their house. Therefore, Respondents 1 & 2 were unable to maintain themselves as they were helpless, while the Appellant was an employee of Rourkela Steel Plant in the Electrical Maintenance Department & was getting Rs. 6,000 per month.

3. The Appellant as well as proforma-Respondent No. 3 filed their written statement denying the averments made in the petition. The Appellant claimed in his written statement that no marriage was solemnized between the Respondent No. 1 & the Appellant. On the other hand, it was specifically pleaded that the Appellant married the pro-forma Respondent No. 3 (Respondent No. 2 in the Court below). It was specifically denied that the pro-forma Respondent No. 3- Smt. Malo was a mistress. It was further stated in the said written statement that out of the marriage of the Appellant with pro-forma Respondent No. 3, four children were born through Appellant. It was further alleged in the written statement that the Appellant & the Respondent No. 1 were working as contract labourers. By virtue of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Appellant got employment in 1995. As the Respondent No. 1 & Petitioner No. 1 belonged to two rival groups of unions & the Petitioner No. 1