SUSANTA KUMAR MAHAPATRA Vs. INDIRA DASH @ MAHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband-petitioner has filed the writ petition bearing W.P. (C) No. 6243 of 2011 challenging the order dated 10.2.2011 passed by the learned Judge. Family Court, Bhubaneswar in I.A. No. 305 of 2010 arising out of C.P. No. 322 of 2010 directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month (Rs. 7,000/- to the wife-opposite party and Rs. 5,000/- to the son) as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application, i.e. from 26.4.2010 considering the application filed by the wife-opposite party under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the said order, the learned Judge has also directed the husband-petitioner to pay arrear maintenance within a period of two months and current maintenance by 10th of each succeeding month. Appellant-husband has also filed MATA No. 73 of 2011 challenging the ex parte order dated 17.8.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur in C.P. No. 589 of 2010 dismissing the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage.

(2.) As both the matters arise out of the same matrimonial dispute between the same parties, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case in hand is that the husband-petitioner married to the opposite party on 10.7.1993 as per the Hindu Customs and Rites. The husband-petitioner alleged that the wife-opposite party had earlier married to one Anil Kumar Pradhan fraudulently and knowing the said fact, her parents had got her marriage solemnized with the petitioner hurriedly to keep the family prestige. The said fact of marriage alliance of the opposite party with Anil which was known to her father was brought to the notice of the husband-petitioner in the first night by the opposite party herself. On being approached, father of the wife-opposite party remained apologetic because the marriage had been solemnized fraudulently, which was within his knowledge. In order to upkeep the family prestige, the wife-opposite party continued good relationship with the husband-petitioner and a male child was born to heron 6.3.1995. The husband-petitioner alleged that the wife-opposite party continued to have adulterous relationship with Anil, who was caught red-handed by his sister while coming out of his quarters. While at Sambalpur, the wife-opposite party developed intimacy with one Md. Faiz @ Raja about which none other than the wife of Md. Faiz complained to the District Judge, Sambalpur. After enquiry by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the matter was subsided and the wife-opposite party admitted her guilt, which was condoned by the husband-petitioner on the advice of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The husband-petitioner alleged that the wife-opposite party continued to have her sexual activities uninhibited with other persons at different stations he was posted thereafter. While the husband-petitioner was posted at Paralakhemundi, the wife-opposite party left his company and did not return to his fold since then and her whereabouts along with her son could not be known despite his report to the police and a station diary entry made in the Police Station to that effect. Despite registered notice to the wife-opposite party, she did not join. Therefore, it is she who voluntarily withdrew from the society of the husband-petitioner without any just cause. The husband-petitioner alleged that the wife-opposite party not only led an adulterous life but also deserted him at her will to bring an end to her mutual co-habitation permanently. Therefore, the husband-petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce in view of the aforesaid misconduct of the wife-opposite party and, therefore he claims for dissolution of the marriage.