Dismissed

Sudarsan Takri v. Jayanti Takri

Orissa HC25 Aug 2023RPFAM/66/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the revision petition challenging a maintenance order. The court held that claims by the petitioner were not sufficient to rebut the Family Court's conclusion, and re-appreciation of evidence is precluded under the Family Courts Act. The revision petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; impugned order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stands confirmed.

Sudarsan Takri Vs Jayanti Takri — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

RPFAM NO.66 OF 2015 Sudarsan Takri …. Petitioner Mr. J.N. Panda, Advocate

¶3

-versus-

¶4

Jayanti Takri and another

¶5

…. Opp. Parties

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

25.08.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶12

Judgment dated 4^th December, 2014 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhawanipatna in Criminal Proceeding No.16 of 2014 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month to each of the Opposite Parties from the date of filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., i.e., from 21^st March, 2014 together with a litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/-.

¶13

The sole contention of Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the Opposite Party No.1 is not the legal married wife of the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2 is not born out of their wedlock. He heavily relied upon the evidence of O.P.W.4 who was the Panchayat Executive Officer of Chatrapur Gram Panchayat at the relevant time. It is the contention that O.P.W.4 produced the register of Indira Gandhi Widow Pension Scheme and proved the relevant entries in the said register stating that the Opposite Party No.1 was the widow of one Sudarsan Harijan and was receiving pension under Indira

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

// 2 //

¶16

Gandhi Widow Pension Scheme. Learned Judge, Family Court although discussed entries made in the said register and the contents of the same but failed to appreciate that the Opposite Party No.1 was the widow of one Sudarsan Harijan and not the wife of the present Petitioner. It is also submitted that learned Judge, Family Court took exception to non-examination of Gita Takri, the wife of the present Petitioner. It is his contention that there are ample materials on record to show that the Opposite Party No.1 is not the legally married wife of the Petitioner. By not appreciating the same in its proper perspective, the impugned order has been passed. It is his contention that the Petitioner having married to Gita Takri, has no occasion to marry the Opposite Party No.1, namely, Jayanti Takri. The Opposite Party No.1 filed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. describing her as Jayanti Takri although she is the widow of Sudarsan Harijan and is getting benefit for the same. This material aspect was not properly appreciated. Hence, this RPFAM has been filed.

¶17

AD of notice on Opposite Parties is not yet back. None appears on their behalf also.

¶18

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it appears that the Panchayat Executve Officer, Chatrapur Gram Panchayat was examined as O.P.W.4, who produced the register concerning Indira Gandhi Widow Pension Scheme. There is an entry in the said register to the effect that one Jayanti Harijan was in receipt of widow pension. Serial No.12 of the register shows the name of Jayanti Harijan. Learned Family Court amongst other

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

// 3 //

¶21

irregularities, disbelieved that said Jayanti Harijan to be the Opposite Party No.1. Learned Judge, Family Court, while discussing the matter has categorically held that when Jayanti Harijan had put LTIs for receipt of widow pension, but the Opposite Party No.1, namely, Jayanti Takri signed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Vakalatnama filed along with it. The O.P.W.4 was also not authorized by the custodian of the register, namely, the Block Development Officer to produce the same in Court. Thus, learned Judge, Family Court disbelieved that Jayanti Harijan and Jayanti Takri are one and the same person. Other exhibits relied upon by the Petitioner also relied to the receipt of pension by said Jayanti Harijan only.

¶22

Strict proof of marriage is not necessary in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. If a man and a lady are living together under one roof for a considerable period and they are accepted by society as husband and wife, the same is sufficient to maintain an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, it is stated that the Petitioner has married to one Gita Takri. Said Gita Takri was not examined in the case on behalf of the Petitioner.

¶23

Since on appreciation of evidence on record, learned Judge, Family Court came to a conclusion that Jayanti TakriOpposite Party No.1 is the wife of the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.2 is born out of their wedlock, for the purpose of receiving maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same, only because a second view may be possible on re-appreciation of the evidence. Since it is a petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Court’s Act, 1984

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

// 4 //

¶26

which is in the nature of application under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C., re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible.

¶27

In view of the above, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶28

Accordingly, the RPFAM stands dismissed.

¶29

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

¶30

(K.R. Mohapatra)

¶31

Rojalin

¶32

Judge

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 29-Aug-2023 19:56:18

¶35

Page 4 of 4

Sudarsan Takri v. Jayanti Takri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudarsan Takri v. Jayanti Takri

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

M. Mohan Reddy Vs D. Padmini

Govinda Rath Vs Suryamani Patry

Mangaraj Prusty andORS Vs Bhagaban PRUSTYandORS

Nilamber Satapaty Vs State and Ors.

Shree Bhagaban Basud Vs Anirudha Sahoo andORS

Damayanti Nanda Vs Prasanta Ku.Nanda