1985 Supreme(Ori) 360
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
K.P. Mohapatra, J.
SATYANARAYAN CHANDRA DEO - APPELLANT
Versus
KUMARI RAJAMANI DEO REPRESENTED BY MOTHER GUARDIAN, KANAK KUMARI DEVI - RESPONDENT
Criminal Revision No. 107 of 1981
Decided On : 11-09-1985
S.C. Ghosh, for the Appellant; None, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of legitimacy and entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 125 - T.S. No. 31 of 1974 - Ext. M - Ext. 34
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a petition for maintenance filed by the wife and daughter of the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner denied paternity of the daughter and claimed that the marriage had been dissolved through a decree in T.S. No. 31 of 1974.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the daughter was born during the subsistence of the marriage and was legitimate. The court also determined the quantum of maintenance for the daughter at Rs. 500 per month from the date of the application.
Issues: The issues included the legitimacy of the daughter, the dissolution of the marriage, and the entitlement to maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on evidence including medical examinations, agreements between the parties, and letters from the petitioner's family to establish the legitimacy of the daughter and determine the quantum of maintenance.
Final Decision: The court upheld the order granting maintenance to the daughter and dismissed the revision.
JUDGMENT :
K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rairakhol granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to the opposite party from the date of application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short.
2. The opposite party, Kumari Rajamani Deo and her mother, Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi filed a petition u/s 125 of the Code claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- for the former and Rs. 1000/- for the latter per month from the date of filing the application. According to their case, Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi, daughter of the ex-ruler of Vasna in the State of Gujuat was married to the Petitioner, one of the sons of the ex-ruler of Rairakhol, in the year 1953 according to the religious customs prevalent in Raj families. They lived happily and out of the wedlock the opposite party was born on 13-7-1963. Sometime thereafter, the Petitioner took to a life of adultery, committed many acts of cruelty towards his wife and daughter and even made attempts to have them killed. He grabbed the cash and jewellery of his wife and did not maintain them. They were removed from Rairakhol palace and were made to live in 80 farm house in a village called 'Pandakimal'. Later they were even ousted from the farm house. It was stated that the opposite party and her mother, both belonging to former Raj families, were reduced to destitution and were practically living on doles and charities extended to them by persons who were their former subjects.
3. The Petitioner admitted that he had legally married Smt. Kanaka Devi, but denied that the opposite party was born to him. According to his case, from 1953 upto 1959 both, of them led a conjugal life. But thereafter she lived an unchaste life developing illicit sexual relationship with a driver called Mangal Singh, so much so, that she had eloped with the said driver. So after 1959 the Petitioner out off conjugal relationship with his wife and ceased to visit her. He gifted away about 30 acres of paddy land in her favour in village Pandakimal made arrangements that she should stay in the farm house of that village. While living in the farm house at Pandakimal, his wife developed illicit relationship with one Sanu Kuda and out of that relationship a son was born who, however, died shortly after birth. In such circumstances, the Petitioner was not liable to give maintenance either to the opposite party who is not his daughter or to his unchaste wife.
4. The learned trial court formulated the following three points for determination:
(1) Whether Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi was the legally married wife of the Petitioner.
(2) Whether the opposite party is the daughter of the Petitioner or an illegitimate child, and
(3) Whether Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi and the opposite party are entitled to maintenance and, if so the quantum thereof.
So far as the first point was concerned, he found that the Petitioner and Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi were admittedly legally married, but in T.S. No. 31 of 1974 of the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur a decree was passed in favour of the Petitioner and ex parte against Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi, whereby, the marriage between them was dissolved and a decree of divorce was passed on 12-5-1980 (Ext. M). Thereafter, there was no relationship of husband and wife between the Petitioner and Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi. So far as the second point was concerned, he found that the Petitioner had acess to his wife in the years 1962 and 1963 and so the opposite party was born out of the wedlock. Accordingly, she is the legitimate daughter of the Petitioner. With regard to the third point he found that Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi was not entitled to maintenance because, the marriage did not subsist after 12-5-1980, but the opposite party being the daughter of the Petitioner was entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of filing of the application for Maintenance.
5. Smt. Ka