JUDGMENT

B.P. RAY, J. : The appellant in this appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has challenged the judgment and decree dated 26.8.2002 and 9.9.2002 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) and Respondent No.2 (daughter) @ Rs.1000/- each per month towards their maintenance from the date of the application i.e. 3.1.2001.

2. The respondent No.1, who was petitioner in the Court below, had filed an application under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and 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 and respondent No.1 are Hindu by caste and they are governed by Hindu Law. Their marriage was solemnized at Itabhatta, Bandhamunda in presence of their relations and well-wishers as per the customs and 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 and in the year 1985 respond¬ent No.2 was born out of their wed-lock. After birth of respond¬ent No.2, it is alleged, the appellant started ill-treatment and neglected both the respondents (petitioners in the Court below) and 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 and 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 and used to abuse the respondent No.1 in filthy language and 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 previ¬ous husband having four children. After the arrival of pro-forma Respondent No.3, the respondents 1 and 2 were deprived of all sorts of amenities and were tortured and ultimately they were forced to leave the house of the appellant and they resided in the parental home of respondent No.1 in the aforementioned vil¬lage. It is stated that the desertion of respondent Nos.1 and 2 by the appellant was pre-planed and 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 and re¬spondent No.1 by holding Panchayats and no fruitful result was achieved and ultimately on 2.3.2000 the respondent No.1 and her child-respondent No.2 were thrown out of their house. Therefore, respondents 1 and 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 and 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 and 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 and 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 and petitioner No.1 belonged to two rival grou