Rangadev Mallick vs Urmila Mallick And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 5265 Ori

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                     CRLMC No. 3125 of 2016

             Rangadev Mallick                           ....          Petitioner
                                  M/s. Sanjeev Udgata, Advocate & Associates
                                          -versus-

             Urmila Mallick and another             .... Opposite Parties
                                M/s. B.R. Mohanty, Advocate & Associates

                         CORAM:
                         THE CHIEF JUSTICE

                                           ORDER

Order No. 05.05.2023

10. 1. The present petition under Section 482 of Cr PC questions the judgment dated 22nd October, 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Phulbani dismissing Criminal Revision No.02/2013 of 2013- 2011 thereby upholding the judgment dated 4th June, 2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phulbani (SDJM) in M.C. No.10 of 2009/ T.R. No.26 of 2009 directing the Petitioner to pay Opposite Party No.1 and the son-Opposite Party No.2 a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month each towards maintenance. The maintenance was to be paid from the date of the order i.e. 4th June, 2011.

2. It must be noted at the outset that the son, i.e., Opposite Party No.2 has now become a major and, therefore, the maintenance is payable only as regards Opposite Party No.1.

3. The main ground of challenge is that according to the Petitioner, there was no marriage between him and Opposite Party No.1. He further earlier contended that Opposite Party No.2 was not his child. The claim of Opposite Party No.1 was under Section 125 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr PC). The claim of the Petitioner was that he had only been married to one Rebati Mallick, but this fact, he could not prove in accordance with law. He then tried to project that Opposite Party No.1 had stayed with some other person for a year and half. However, he could not prove that she actually married the other person. The learned SDJM analyzed the entire evidence led by the parties and concluded that the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.1 were married nine years prior to the petition being filed as per their 'caste and custom'. They were leading a conjugal life at Sarsalanda village and through that union Opposite Party No.2 was born. This was supported by the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 4. The evidence led by the Petitioner to the contrary was not convincing. Moreover, as noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, both parties belong to the Kandha tribe and, therefore, the Court cannot insist on the basic requirements of a valid marriage under the Hindu Law to be complied with.

4. On a preponderance of probability, Opposite Party No.1 had managed to establish her case that she was the legally wedded wife of the Petitioner.

5. Consequently, there is no merit in the present petition and it is accordingly dismissed.

6. The Superintendent of the concerned Branch is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Subordinate Court forthwith.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

S. Behera SUMANTA Digitally signed by SUMANTA BEHERA

BEHERA Date: 2023.05.08