D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) THIS revision application has been filed against the order dated 3-9-1998 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in M.P. Case No 35 of 1998 whereby a sum of Rs. 500/- per month was awarded to the wife/opposite party No. 1 by way of her maintenance directing the petitioner to pay the same.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of the learned Court below primarily on the ground that the learned Court below has seriously erred in failing to consider the fact that the opposite party No. 1 has willfully withdrawn herself from the company and society of her husband, namely the present petitioner without there being any sufficient cause offered by her. Learned counsel explains that from the evidence adduced on record, it would transpire that after the Gauna ceremony, opposite party No. 1 was brought by the petitioner to his house to lead normal conjugal life. Whereafter, she herself left her matrimonial house and returned to the house of her parents. The petitioner had tried his level best extending all sincere efforts to bring back his wife to his house, but the lady had persistently refused to restore conjugal relations with him. Learned counsel adds further that the learned Court below has further erred in failing to consider that the opposite party No. 1 has though claimed that the petitioner is a man of means owing substantial properties, but no reliable and cogent evidence in support of such contention has been adduced by her. In fact, learned Court below has itself acknowledged that the petitioner has no source of regular income and that he is a daily wage labourer. Yet, without considering the fact that the petitioner had never given any just and sufficient cause to the wife for living separate from him and without considering the fact that the petitioner has no source of income, the trial Court had proceeded to award the amount of maintenance against the petitioner, thereby causing grave injustice to him. Learned counsel adds further that attempts were made both by the learned Court below as also by this Court for reconciliation between the spouses and though opposite party No. 1 had appeared at the reconciliation proceeding, but she had expressed her defiant attitude declaring that she has no more interest in restoring conjugal relation with the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite party No. 1 on the other hand, while inviting attention to the evidences adduced on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 at the trial Court, submits that within few days of her arrival at her matrimonial house after the marriage, the lady began to be subjected to ill- treatment and negligence on account of non-fulfillment of petitioner's demand of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- by way of dowry and under such circumstances, the lady was compelled to leave her matrimonial house since further continuance in the company of the petitioner was fraught with danger to her life and person. Learned counsel adds further that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 1 was solemnized according to Hindu rites and considering the reasons stated by her, she has every right to live separate from the company of her husband and the petitioner is bound to provide maintenance to her by virtue of opposite party No. 1 being his legally married wife.;