The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to maintenance under the relevant provisions of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 and the Cr.P.C., as well as the burden of proof in adultery and desertion claims in divorce proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Sanju Panda, J. - M.A.T.A. No. 70 of 2010 has been filed by the wife and minor daughter challenging the order dated 12.8.2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No. 463 of 2003, dismissing the application filed by them under Sections 18 and 20 of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956.

2. M.A.T.A. No. 73 of 2010 has been filed by the husband challenging the order dated 12.8.2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Criminal Proceeding No. 362 of 2005 filed by the minor son u/s 125, Cr.P.C. granting maintenance to him.

3. M.A.T.A. No. 93 of 2010 has been filed by the wife challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, Family Court in C.P. No. 100 of 2005 filed by the husband u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce on the plea of adultery.

4. The learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack while disposing of the aforesaid three proceedings by a common judgment allowed C.P. No. 100 of 2005 on contest against the wife and ex parte against one Tapan Swain, against whom the plea of adultery has been taken by the husband. While granting decree of divorce, the Court below directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the wife and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the minor son, as lump sum maintenance with a direction to keep the aforesaid Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of minor son in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of five years and he (the minor) is entitled to draw monthly interest out of the amount regularly. So far as grant of maintenance to minor daughter is concerned, the same was dismissed.

5. The facts as revealed from the record are as follows:

The marriage between Brundaban-appellant and Nalini-respondent took place on 15.7.1999 as per Hindu law, custom and rites. Thereafter, both of them lived as husband and wife for some years. Out of their wedlock, a daughter, namely Reemita was born. The respondent was in the family way and was expected to deliver a child in September, 2003. Appellant being a Constable of Police was at Buxibazar, Cuttack. In course of time dissension erupted between the couple for demand of dowry by the husband and in-laws. It is alleged that when their marriage was about to settle, appellant was given Rs. 1,00,000/- for business purpose and with the said money he purchased a land in his name, which amount was obtained by respondent's father by way of loan from State Bank of India, Bidyadharpur Branch by mortgaging his immovable property, in which appellant was the guarantor. After marriage, both the couple resided together. It is alleged that when further demand of dowry made by appellant and his family members was not fulfilled, respondent was tortured mentally and physically time and again. Thereafter, on 23.1.2003 as per conspiracy of appellant's family members respondent was forcibly driven out from the matrimonial house. Since then she and her children are residing with her parents. Respondent being a cardiac patient is undergoing treatment regularly. It is therefore contended that the respondent and her children have no independent source of income for their sustenance and appellant has neglected to maintain them having a sufficient means. The wife has taken a plea that there was relationship between them prior to marriage. The father of respondent-wife had given Rs. 1,00,000/- to the husband for business purpose taking loan from State Bank of India in which the husband was a guarantor. However, the appellant utilized the said money towards purchase of a piece of land in his name. Even after marriage, the wife was continuously residing at Buxibazar, Cuttack Town, the in-laws demanded more dowry and due to non-fulfillment of such dowry, she was been forcibly driven out on 23.1.2003 and from that date she with her children is residing in her father's house. She admitted that she is a cardiac patient and is undergoing regular treatment. As she has no independent source of income to maintain herself and the children, she