Arjuna Digal vs Sangeeta Digal
2023 Latest Caselaw 7219 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  RPFAM NO.227 OF 2018
                 Arjuna Digal                        ....     Petitioner
                                                  Mr.Amit Prasad Bose,
                                                             Advocate

                                           -versus-
                 Sangeeta Digal                            ....   Opp. Party


                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

                                       ORDER

Order No.                             04.07.2023

  4.        1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Petitioner in this RPFAM seeks to assail the judgment dated 14th May, 2017 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Khandamal, Phulbani in CRP No.65 of 2017, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month to the Opposite Party as maintenance from the date of the application, i.e., from 8th September, 2017.

3. Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that although it is stated in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that the Opposite party is the legally married wife of the Petitioner, but the statement of P.W.2, namely, Mani Digal, the father of the Opposite Party, clearly discloses that no marriage was solemnized between the Petitioner and the Opposite Party at Church as they belong to Christian Community. It is also admitted that the Petitioner eloped with the Opposite Party from Saliasahi, Bhubaneswar and after ten days, father of the

// 2 //

Petitioner came to know about the same. The father of the Opposite Party has gone to their residence after six months. It is submitted that the Petitioner was a Taxi Driver during the relevant period and was earning about Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month. He has his dependant parents. Being a Taxi Driver, he had to stay out of home most of the time for which his personal expenses are also high. As such, direction to pay maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month is highly excessive more particularly when there is material on record to show that they lived together only for ten days. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order.

4. Although notice on Opposite Party is sufficient, none appears on her behalf at the time of call.

5. Considering the submission made by Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner and that strict proof of marriage is not necessary for adjudication of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the considered opinion that the Opposite Party is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It has come out in the evidence that the Opposite Party had conceived through the Petitioner twice when they are staying at Bhubaneswar. Thus, it is apparent that the parties were living as husband and wife for a considerable period.

6. There is no material on record to show the exact income of the Petitioner. It is the duty of the Petitioner to disclose his exact income as it is in his special knowledge. Since the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month only to the Opposite Party and he was working as a Taxi

// 3 //

Driver during the relevant Period, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

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

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

Rojalin

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 05-Jul-2023 10:25:38