Advocates:
['M/S BISWAJIT MOHAPATRA', '', 'G PANDA', 'S K SAHOO', 'S K DAS', 'A K MALLICK', 'P SAHOO', 'M/S P K NAYAK', '', 'H B DASH']

Page 1 of 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

RPFAM NO. 12 OF 2009

Reshma Lakra

….

Petitioner

Mr. A.K. Mallick, Advocate

-versus-

William Lakra

….

Opp. Party

CORAM:

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

04.07.2022

7.

1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

The Petitioner in this RPFAM seeks to assail the judgment

and order dated 3^rd October, 2008 passed in Criminal Proceeding

No. 61 of 2007, whereby learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela

rejected an application filed by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for

maintenance.

3.

Brief facts of the case is that the Petitioner claiming to be

the daughter of Opposite Party, namely, William Lakra, filed an

application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before learned Judge, Family

Court, Rourkela for maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month

and further amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards her marriage expenses.

The Petitioner is the daughter of first legally married wife of

Opposite Party, who was an employee of Orissa Cement Limited,

Rajgangpur. When the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed,

the Petitioner was aged about 32 years. The Opposite Party was

superannuated from service and after retirement, he received all

retiral benefits, which is kept in fixed deposit. The Opposite Party

has also some landed properties. Therefore, he has sufficient means

// 2 //

Page 2 of 6

to provide maintenance to his daughter. On the other hand, the

Petitioner has no source of income. Thus, the Petitioner filed the

petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the aforesaid relief.

4.

The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written

statement denying the allegations made in the petition filed under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. It was further asserted in the written statement

that the Opposite Party had married one Helena Ekka at Catholic

Church, Keshramal on 24^th December, 1981. They were blessed

with one daughter and three sons, namely, Anima, Saroj, Don

Joseph and Manoj respectively. Said Helena is his legally married

wife. Prior to that, he had not married any other woman. It has

been further averred in the written statement that the allegation of

the Petitioner that she being the daughter of his first wife is entitled

to get maintenance and marriage expenses is denied.

5.

Learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela considering the

evidence adduced by the witnesses, more particularly oral

testimony of P.Ws.1 and 5 being supported by Exts.1 to 4 came to a

finding that the Petitioner was the legitimate daughter of Opposite

Party and her mother was Sebastiana. However, learned Judge,

Family Court, refused the prayer for maintenance in view of

provision under Section 125 (1)(c) Cr.P.C. as the Petitioner was

aged about 32 years at the time of filing application under Section

125 Cr.P.C.

6.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner

has no independent source of income to maintain herself. Law is

well settled that the father is under a legal obligation to maintain his

unmarried daughter till she gets married. The Opposite Party failed

to adduce any oral or documentary evidence to show that the

Petitioner has any income to maintain herself or that she was

married. Thus, learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela has

// 3 //

Page 3 of 6

committed an error of law in coming to the conclusion that merely

because the Petitioner does not suffer from any physical or mental

abnormality or injury, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. He

relied upon the decision in the case of Narayan Rath –v- Sakuntala

Rath, reported in 2005 (I) OLR 654, wherein it has been held that a

major unmarried daughter would be entitled to maintenance from

her father, if she has no income to