Dismissed

Nagu Sahu v. Smt.Padma Sahu

Orissa HC29 Jul 2019WPCRL/104/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner invoked Article 226 to challenge a revisional order directing them to pay monthly maintenance. The Court upheld the revisional court's finding that marriage was sufficiently proven and dismissed the writ application, noting strict proof is not mandated in summary maintenance proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The WPCRL application was dismissed. The interim order dated 18.7.2006 ceased to survive.

Nagu Sahu Vs Smt.Padma Sahu — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

WPCRL No.104 of 2006

¶2

29.07.2019 The petitioner, by filing this application, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in impeaching an order dated 14.09.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada at Bhawanipatna in Criminal Revision No.39 of 2004.

¶3

Learned J.M.F.C., M.Rampur, by order dated 8.2.2004 passed in C.M.C. No.17 of 2001, had dismissed the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party (petitioner in the court below). Being aggrieved by the said order, this opposite party, having preferred the revision, by the impugned order, the revisional court has set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and directed this petitioner (opposite party in the court below) to pay a sum of Rs.500/per month to this opposite party with effect from 8.8.2001, laying down other stipulation as to the payment of arrear of monthly maintenance by the petitioner to the opposite party.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of any perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the court below in arriving at a conclusion that the parties are having no relationship as husband and wife, the revisional court has illegally exercised its jurisdiction in annulling the said order of the learned Magistrate and directing this petitioner to pay maintenance to the opposite party.

¶5

None appears on behalf of the opposite party despite service of notice.

¶6

¶7

Keeping in view the submission made, the impugned order passed by the revisional court being perused, it is seen that at paragraphs-4, 5 and 6 of the judgment, the evidence on record have been discussed in the backdrop of the settled position of law that in a proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C., which is summary in nature, strict proof of marriage is not mandated. The revisional court having found the evidence to be quite satisfactory that in the village temple, the parties had married in presence of the villagers, has ultimately awarded the maintenance in favour of this opposite party in going to say that the finding of the court below, in a proceeding that there was no marriage between the parties suffers from the vice of perversity, since it had proceeded to find as to if the marriage has been strictly proved or not.

¶8

Given a reading to the discussion of evidence as has been made by the revisional court in the touchstone of the settled position of law holding the field in returning the finding of marriage in a proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C., which is summary in nature, this Court finds that the revisional court has acted well within the bounds of its jurisdiction in revising the order of the learned Magistrate, holding the entitlement of this opposite party to the maintenance from the petitioner in finally fixing the quantum of maintenance to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite party.

¶9

In that view of the matter, the WPCRL stands dismissed.

¶10

¶11

Thus the interim order dated 18.7.2006 passed by this Court in Misc. Case No.31 of 2006 does no more survive. Issue urgent certified copy of this order on proper application.

¶12

…………………….. D. Dash, J.

¶13

Basu

Nagu Sahu v. Smt.Padma Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagu Sahu v. Smt.Padma Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratikanta Senapati Vs State

Rahul Pradhan Vs State of Orissa

Ajit Gochhayat Vs State of Orissa

Dillip Ku.Pattnaik Vs State

Dwarika Mohan Mishra Vs State

Purna Ch.Panigrahi Vs State