Sukant Kumar Swain @ Sukanta vs Gitarani Swain
2023 Latest Caselaw 2084 Ori

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                RPFAM NO. 351 OF 2022
                 Sukant Kumar Swain @ Sukanta        ....       Petitioner
                 Swain
                                       Mr. Bipin Kumar Nayak, Advocate
                                       -versus-
                 Gitarani Swain                      .... Opp. Party



                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                   ORDER

Order No.                        13.03.2023

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

2. Judgment dated 21st October, 2022 (Annexure-1) passed in CRP No.131 of 2016 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby learned Judge, Family Court, Puri directed the Petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month to the Opposite Party from the date of application, i.e. 24th October, 2016.

3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that by the time death of his wife on 4th April, 2012, the children of the Petitioner had already grown up. Thus, there was no occasion on the part of the Opposite Party to marry to the Petitioner. Although specific objection to that effect was raised, learned Judge, Family Court, Puri without considering the same has passed the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to set aside.

4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it appears that learned Judge, Family

// 2 //

Court, Puri on consideration of the materials on record held that the Petitioner had married to the Opposite Party on 7th August, 2013. On assessment of the evidence on record, learned Judge, Family Court, Puri came to the conclusion that the Opposite Party was staying in the house of the Petitioner as his wife. Since strict proof of marriage is not required under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it was held that when the parties were living as husband and wife, it is sufficient to entertain an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as all other ingredients are also satisfied. Admittedly, the Opposite Party has no independent source of income and it is observed that on assessment of the materials on record, Petitioner's income was assessed to be Rs.15,000/- per month.

5. In that view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the impugned order directing the Petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month to the Opposite Party.

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

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

                                          (K.R. Mohapatra)
bks                                             Judge