Chita Ranjan Prusty vs Priyatama Prusty @ Patra
2023 Latest Caselaw 4173 Ori

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4173 Ori
Judgement Date : 24 April, 2023

Orissa High Court

Chita Ranjan Prusty vs Priyatama Prusty @ Patra on 24 April, 2023

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RPFAM No. 178 OF 2022
                 Chita Ranjan Prusty                     ....       Petitioner
                                                Mr. Soumya Mishra, Advocate
                                            -versus-
                 Priyatama Prusty @ Patra                  ....     Opp. Party
                                                                         None

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                        ORDER

Order No.                              24.04.2023
   8.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Perused the report of learned Mediator dated 6th March, 2023 (at Flag-C), wherein it is stated that the mediation was unsuccessful.

3. Judgment dated 14th July, 2022 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Puri in C.R.P. No.60 of 2017 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the Opposite Party from the date of filing of the application, i.e., from 21st July, 2017.

4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner assails the order of learned Judge, Family Court on the ground that there is no material on record to show that the Petitioner was negligent in maintaining his wife-Opposite Party. It is further submitted that the proceedings before the State Women Commission (for brevity 'the Commission') describe the conduct of the Opposite Party, for which she is not entitled to maintenance. The proceedings before the Commission have been

// 2 //

marked as Ext.A to D from the side of the Petitioner. In order to show that the Petitioner was taking care of the Opposite Party, documents were also exhibited as Ext.E to J. Learned Judge, Family Court without taking into consideration the same, passed the impugned judgment under Annexure-3 only on conjectures and surmises. A main ground on which the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed was that the wife will have no reason to leave the company of her husband unless there are some compelling circumstances. No document with regard to alleged torture on the Opposite Party was filed. It is also submitted that on the day, the Opposite Party left the matrimonial home, i.e., on 10th May,2017, she approached the Commission and her statement was recorded. She categorically stated that she will convey her decision to stay with the Petitioner after discussing with her family members. But she never cooperated with the Commission, as a result of which the proceeding was dropped on 10th July, 2017. Materials to that effect though available on record, were not taken into consideration by learned Judge, Family Court while adjudicating the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Further the income and expenditure of the Petitioner was not taken into consideration while determining the quantum of maintenance. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned judgment under Annexure-3 and to remit the matter back to learned Judge, Family Court, Puri for fresh adjudication of the matter in accordance with law.

5. None appears for the Opposite Party, although she is represented though learned counsel.

6. Considering the submission made by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and the proceedings before the

// 3 //

Commission produced before the Court along with an affidavit dated 6th February, 2023, this Court finds that the Opposite Party had made a statement before the Commission to the effect that she will convey her decision to continue with the Petitioner after discussing with her family members. It further appears that due to her non-cooperation, the proceeding before the Commission was dropped. Further the documents filed by the Petitioner with regard to treatment of Opposite Party were neither considered nor discussed in the impugned judgment under Annexure-3.

7. Further, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the case of Deb Narayan Halder -v- Smt. Anushree Halder, reported in AIR 2003 SC 3174, wherein at Paragraph-20, it is held as under:

"20. We therefore hold that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the findings recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate. We have reached this conclusion after appreciating the evidence on record since there is no discussion of the evidence in the judgment of the High Court. Counsel for the respondent posed before us a question as a part of his submission as to why the respondent should leave her matrimonial home without any reason. In cases where there is a dispute between husband and wife it is very difficult to unravel the true reason for the dispute. After separation when the relationship turns sour, all sorts of allegations and counter allegations are made against each other. Evidence of contemporaneous nature therefore plays an important role in such cases as it may reveals the thinking and attitude of the parties towards each other at the relevant time. Such evidence is usually found in the form of letters written by the parties to each other or to their friends and relatives or recorded in any other document of contemporaneous nature. If really the respondent was subjected to cruelty and harassment in the manner alleged by her, we have no doubt she would have written about such treatment to her friends and relatives with whom she may have corresponded. The reports allegedly made by her to the police may have

// 4 //

thrown some light on this aspect of the matter. Such evidence is completely absent in this case. It appears to us that the parties lived happily for many years after the marriage till about the year 1996, whereafter there was some misunderstanding which ultimately resulted in their separation. Why this happened, it is difficult to fathom, but the evidence on record does not convince us that the respondent was subjected to torture and harassment by the appellant, and certainly not for the reasons alleged by her. The Court is not permitted to conjecture and surmise. It must base its findings on the evidence produced before it by the parties. The enquiry by the Court is restricted to the evidence on record and the case pleaded by the parties. It is not permissible to the Court to conjecture and surmise and make out a third case not pleaded by the parties only to answer the query such as the one posed to us."

8. On perusal of the impugned judgment under Annexure-3, it appears that it is based on surmises and conjectures without discussing materials on record. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment under annexure-3 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to learned Judge, Family Court, Puri for fresh adjudication of the matter on the basis of materials available on record giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.