Harihar Prusty vs Tulasi Prusty
2023 Latest Caselaw 550 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  RPFAM No. 4 OF 2002
                 Harihar Prusty                         ....       Petitioner
                                            Mr. Bibudhendra Dash, Advocate
                                           -versus-
                 Tulasi Prusty                              ....   Opp. Party
                                                                  None

                       CORAM:
                       JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                       ORDER

Order No.                             17.01.2023
   8.       1.       This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 6th April, 2001 passed in Criminal Proceeding No.106 of 1994, whereby learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack directed the Petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.250/- per month to the Opposite Party from the date of application i.e. from 9th March, 1994 till the date of the order and thereafter to pay maintenance Rs.300/- per month to the Opposite Party.

3. Mr. Dash, learned counsel submits that the Opposite Party is not the legal married wife of the Petitioner and the child was not born out of their wedlock. Although evidence to that effect was led, learned Judge, Family Court did not appreciate the same in its proper perspective and passed the impugned Judgment. It is his submission that there is no cogent evidence on record to come to a conclusion that there was any marriage between the Petitioner and Opposite Party and the child was born out of their wedlock. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned judgment.

4. Although the Opposite Party is represented by learned counsel, none appears at the time of hearing.

// 2 //

5. On consideration of submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the Opposite Party has examined two witnesses and has exhibited voter list and photo identity card issued by the Election Commission of India as Ext.4. Although, the Petitioner examined himself as O.P.W.1, but has not exhibited any document. Law is well settled that the witness may lie, but not the documents. Strict proof of marriage is not necessary while adjudicating an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

6. Taking into consideration the relevant entries in the voter list as well as photo identity card issued by the Election Commission of India, learned Judge, Family Court came to a categorical conclusion that the Opposite Party is the wife of the Petitioner and passed the impugned judgment.

7. Since this Court is exercising the power of revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, re-appreciation of evidence on record is not permissible. As the findings of learned Judge, Family Court is based on assessment of evidence on record, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. Further the maintenance awarded appears to be reasonable taking into consideration the cost of living vis-à-vis the income of the Petitioner at the relevant time.

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

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

                                         (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                             Judge