Prasanta Kodamsingh vs Gitanjali Behera
2023 Latest Caselaw 1230 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                    RPFAM No. 43 OF 2012
                 Prasanta Kodamsingh                      ....      Petitioner
                                                 Mr. Anirudha Das, Advocate

                                           -versus-
                 Gitanjali Behera                          ....    Opp. Party
                                                                        None

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                        ORDER

Order No.                              06.02.2023
   10.      1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 4th April, 2012 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Khurda in Criminal Petition No.573 of 2010 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month to the Opposite Party from the date of application, i.e., from 6th September, 2010.

3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is no marital relationship between the Petitioner and Opposite Party, which has been stoutly denied by the Petitioner in his show cause reply to the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. He also drew attention of this Court to the averments made under Annexure-2, i.e., show cause reply to the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioner. It is his submission that there is no material on record to the effect that the Opposite Party is the legally married of the Petitioner. Hence, no direction for payment of maintenance to the Opposite Party under Section 125 Cr.P.C. could have been issued by learned Judge, Family Court. It is his

// 2 //

submission that although the Petitioner had an affair with the Opposite Party, but it could not materialize because of their caste barrier. Taking advantage of their intimacy, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed. Although specific plea objecting to the marital status of the Opposite Party was raised, but learned Judge, Family Court ignoring the same, passed the impugned order under Annexure-3. Hence, the same is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

4. Although the Opposite Party is represented through her counsel, but none appears on her behalf at the time of hearing.

5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, more particularly, Annexure-1, the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it appears that there is specific allegation that the Opposite Party is the wife of the Petitioner and marriage between them was solemnized in Tareni Temple at Ranpur and thereafter they lived as husband and wife. There is no specific denial to the same in the show cause reply as at Annexure-2. It further appears that the P.W.1 in her evidence has stated that after four days of their stay in rented house, the family members of the Opposite Party rescued the Opposite Party and took her to their village. Thus, it is clear that the Petitioner and Opposite Party had lived as husband and wife under one roof.

6. Law is well settled that strict proof of marriage is not necessary to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. Discussing the same, the learned Judge, Family Court, Khurda directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the Opposite Party as maintenance, which is just and reasonable.

// 3 //

7. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under Annexure-3.

8. Accordingly, the RPFAM being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

9. Interim order dated 2nd July, 2012 passed in M.C. No.83 of 2012 stands vacated.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge ms