Orissa High Court
Sudarsan Takri vs Jayanti Takri And Another on 25 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM NO.66 OF 2015
Sudarsan Takri .... Petitioner
Mr. J.N. Panda, Advocate
-versus-
Jayanti Takri and another .... Opp. Parties
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 25.08.2023
4. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Judgment dated 4th December, 2014 passed by learned
Judge, Family Court, Bhawanipatna in Criminal Proceeding
No.16 of 2014 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the
Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.1500/- per
month to each of the Opposite Parties from the date of filing of
the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., i.e., from 21 st March,
2014 together with a litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/-.
3. The sole contention of Mr. Panda, learned counsel for
the Petitioner is that the Opposite Party No.1 is not the legal
married wife of the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2 is not
born out of their wedlock. He heavily relied upon the evidence
of O.P.W.4 who was the Panchayat Executive Officer of
Chatrapur Gram Panchayat at the relevant time. It is the
contention that O.P.W.4 produced the register of Indira Gandhi
Widow Pension Scheme and proved the relevant entries in the
said register stating that the Opposite Party No.1 was the widow
of one Sudarsan Harijan and was receiving pension under Indira
// 2 //
Gandhi Widow Pension Scheme. Learned Judge, Family Court
although discussed entries made in the said register and the
contents of the same but failed to appreciate that the Opposite
Party No.1 was the widow of one Sudarsan Harijan and not the
wife of the present Petitioner. It is also submitted that learned
Judge, Family Court took exception to non-examination of Gita
Takri, the wife of the present Petitioner. It is his contention that
there are ample materials on record to show that the Opposite
Party No.1 is not the legally married wife of the Petitioner. By
not appreciating the same in its proper perspective, the
impugned order has been passed. It is his contention that the
Petitioner having married to Gita Takri, has no occasion to
marry the Opposite Party No.1, namely, Jayanti Takri. The
Opposite Party No.1 filed the application under Section 125
Cr.P.C. describing her as Jayanti Takri although she is the
widow of Sudarsan Harijan and is getting benefit for the same.
This material aspect was not properly appreciated. Hence, this
RPFAM has been filed.
4. AD of notice on Opposite Parties is not yet back. None
appears on their behalf also.
5. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for
the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it appears that the
Panchayat Executve Officer, Chatrapur Gram Panchayat was
examined as O.P.W.4, who produced the register concerning
Indira Gandhi Widow Pension Scheme. There is an entry in the
said register to the effect that one Jayanti Harijan was in receipt
of widow pension. Serial No.12 of the register shows the name
of Jayanti Harijan. Learned Family Court amongst other
// 3 //
irregularities, disbelieved that said Jayanti Harijan to be the
Opposite Party No.1. Learned Judge, Family Court, while
discussing the matter has categorically held that when Jayanti
Harijan had put LTIs for receipt of widow pension, but the
Opposite Party No.1, namely, Jayanti Takri signed the petition
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Vakalatnama filed along with it.
The O.P.W.4 was also not authorized by the custodian of the
register, namely, the Block Development Officer to produce the
same in Court. Thus, learned Judge, Family Court disbelieved
that Jayanti Harijan and Jayanti Takri are one and the same
person. Other exhibits relied upon by the Petitioner also relied to
the receipt of pension by said Jayanti Harijan only.
6. Strict proof of marriage is not necessary in a proceeding
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. If a man and a lady are living together
under one roof for a considerable period and they are accepted
by society as husband and wife, the same is sufficient to
maintain an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the instant
case, it is stated that the Petitioner has married to one Gita Takri.
Said Gita Takri was not examined in the case on behalf of the
Petitioner.
7. Since on appreciation of evidence on record, learned
Judge, Family Court came to a conclusion that Jayanti Takri-
Opposite Party No.1 is the wife of the Petitioner and Opposite
Party No.2 is born out of their wedlock, for the purpose of
receiving maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., this Court is
not inclined to interfere with the same, only because a second
view may be possible on re-appreciation of the evidence. Since it
is a petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Court's Act, 1984
// 4 //
which is in the nature of application under Section 397 read with
401 Cr.P.C., re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible.
8. In view of the above, the Court is not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order.
9. Accordingly, the RPFAM stands dismissed.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Rojalin Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Aug-2023 19:56:18
