JUDGMENT

P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — Human relationship is based on personal and social bondage but sometimes it shatters due to defection. A matrimonial relationship according to the personal law of Hindus is a sacred, firm but tender relationship. When it cracks because of misunderstanding or dispute between the spouses on any ground provided in the matrimonial law that results in either a decree for restitution of conjugal right, judicial separation or di¬vorce. When that is not adhered to by the parties then claim for maintenance if made is settled either amicably or as per the decision of the Courts on the basis of statutory provisions governing the parties. The present dispute belongs to the latter category.

2. The wife/respondent in her mid-fifties in 1995 filed the application for maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short ‘Act, 1956’) registered as Civil Proceeding No. 57 of 1995 in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. She having been granted maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. in an earlier occasion in Criminal Misc. Case No. 7 of 1975 also prayed for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127, Cr.P.C. which was registered as Criminal Proceeding No. 499 of 1995. Learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack as per the impugned judgment dated 23.9.1997 heard analogously and disposed of both the applications by a common judgment granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) per month to the respondent in accordance with the provision under the Act, 1956 and in view of that the Family Court rejected the claim for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127, Cr.P.C.

3. A brief sketch of the dispute between the parties which had been noted in the impugned judgment and neither controverted in the appeal memo nor at the time of argument reveals that there was fall out between the spouses i.e., the opposite party/appellant who is the husband and the petitioner/respondent who is the wife. That fall-out was on account of allegation by the wife against the husband for keeping a concubine during the subsistence of their marriage. The above noted strained relationship as claimed by the wife, led her to live separately from her husband since 1964 along with her the then minor son who has become a major one by now. That separate living still continues. As noted above, her application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 7 of 1975 was allowed granting her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 155/-. The quantum of maintenance was enhanced to Rs. 270/- per month as per Order under Section 127 passed by the Magistrate on 2.9.1989. By then the appellant- husband was in service. Her application for maintenance and enhancement for maintenance respectively under the Act, 1956 and Cr.P.C. was filed after the retirement of her husband from service on the sole ground of insufficiency of the quantum of Rs. 270/- per month to maintain her livelihood because of rise in the cost of living. The appel¬lant-husband defended the motion by advancing the plea of retire¬ment and getting a meagre amount of rupees nine hundred and odd towards the provisional pension. At the time of analogous hearing of the cases both the parties examined each of them as the soli¬tary witness to prove and counter the claim for maintenance at an enhanced rate. Thus, the respondent was examined as P.W.1 and the appellant was examined as O.P.W.1.

On assessment of such evidence and keeping in view the above facts and circumstances besides the quantum which the appellant received towards the pension/entitled to receive towards the pension, learned Judge, Family Court vide the impugned judgment passed an order directing the appellant to pay a monthly mainte¬nance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month with effect from March, 1995 on the basis of her claim in the Civil Proceeding. Appellant challenges that order before this Court.

4. A sum total of the ground advanced by the appellant in challenging the said order of maintenance