Subashis Bhoi v. Sujata Singh

Judgment

14.05.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.

1. The matter was presented before this Court on

26.06.2024. The petitioner-husband in the marriage is before this Court seeking revision of the judgment dated 03.06.2024 RPFAM 180 of 2024 Page 1 of 23 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Angul in CRP No.142 of 2019.

2. The said CRP No.142 of 2019 was initiated by the wife in the marriage under section 125 of Cr.P.C. (since repealed and substituted by the parimateria provision section 144 of BNSS, 2023) seeking monthly maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only). The CRP was favoured, however, granting monthly maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- (rupees four thousand only) per month from 11.12.2015 till 31.12.2022 and Rs.7,000/- (rupees seven thousand only) per month from 01.01.2023. The arrear maintenance was directed to be paid from

11.12.2015 upto May, 2024 in four equal consecutive monthly instalments, starting from June, 2024 onwards.

3. After hearing at length the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the brief reply of learned counsel for the Opp. Party on 12.05.2026, this Court had passed order, relevant portion of the order is quoted herein: “ xxx Seeking revision of the judgment, it is 5. submitted by petitioner that the learned Judge, Family Court has not examined the evidence on record in its proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion. learned counsel On being asked, it is submitted by the learned counsel upon petitioner remains in default in paying the amount directed. The defaulted amount comes to about Rs.4,55,000/- thousand). instruction (rupees RPFAM 180 of 2024 Page 2 of 23

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment, particularly, the exhibit marked as Ext.A described by the petitioner as purported ‘declaration document’ of the petitioner showing that she left the house of OP voluntarily produced by the petitioner herein who is the Opp. Party and submits that the impact of the exhibit has not been properly appreciated by the learned Family Court. Upon perusal of the judgment impugned, it is apparent that regarding the said Ext.A, learned Judge, Family Court has discussed in detail as well as regarding Ext.B (the copy of the ‘agreement of the parties’ supplied by the Inspector-in- Charge, Jujumura PS). The discussions and findings of the learned Judge, Family Court is at paragraphs 20 and 25, which are reproduced herein: “20. Both P.W.1 & 2 have deposed in their evidence that on 21st day of the marriage the petitioner was talking to a friend in presence of her mother in law and on return of the O.P., her mother in law whispered something to him who started suspecting her character. The O.P. rebuked her saying that she is in love with another boy of her parental locality and trying to keep relationship with him even after her marriage. When the petitioner protested him alleging that the allegations are false, he slapped and kicked her in present of her in laws. Nothing substantial has been brought out from the mouth of the said witnesses to disbelieve their evidence. The evidence on record also shows that after that incident the petitioner went to her parental house and again the O.P. along with his relatives had gone to the parental house of the petitioner where a meeting was convened. Thereafter again RPFAM 180 of 2024 Page 3 of 23 executed document was petitioner went to her matrimonial house but due to further disturbance her father came and took the petitioner by executing Ext.B. Ext.B shows that on dtd.04.06.2015 both the parties have amicably decided that after fifteen days both the parties will come to police station on dtd.20.06.2015 along with their caste people and they will settle the matter and till that day the petitioner will stay with her father. The dtd.04.06.2015 and the O.P. and father of the petitioner along with others signed on the document which has been entered vide SDE No.68 dtd.04.06.2015 and SDE No.359 dtd.18.06.2015. So far as the document under Ext.A is concerned, the contents of the said document shows that the petitioner left her in laws house as per her own will and not willing to maintain marital relationship with the O.P. The execution of the said document is disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, it is the onus of the O.P. to prove the contents of the said document as per law. Marking of the document as exhibit will no way exempt the O.P. to prove its contents U/s.67 of Indian Evidence Act and its execution. Allegations of assault and torture on the petitioner is there. The stamp vendor who had sold the stamp paper, on which Ext.A has been scribed is not examined. Very strangely it is found that the signature of the petitioner in the reverse side of Ext.A has been mentioned as “Sujata Bhoj”. The letter “o” has been overwritten. It is also not understood when all the parties were present in P.S. on dtd.04.06.2015 and the documents, under what executed circumstances Ext.A was prepared on dtd.05.06.2015 when the parties were not available there at P.S. on dtd.05.06.2015 RPFAM 180 of 2024 Page 4 of 23 to deprive her In whose presence and left the P.S. after execution of the documents. Where the document under Ext.A was prepared is neither pleaded nor proved. the said document was prepared is not disclosed. Under what circumstances Ext.A was executed by the petitioner is not clear. No other person has signed on Ext.A except the petitioner. Therefore reasonable doubt arises about the lawful execution and genuineness of Ext.A. It can’t be safely accepted that the O.P. has proved by adducing legal evidence that the petitioner has executed Ext.A as per her free will and consent. Therefore the contention raised on behalf of the O.P. that the petitioner left his house as per her own will can’t be accepted to get her legitimate right enforced against the O.P. to get maintenance from him being his legally wedded wife. The evidence on record also clearly establishes that due to the dispute regarding allegation of the O.P. that the petitioner was in love with another boy of her locality, there was matrimonial dispute between the parties and for that reason the petitioner is staying separately from the O.P. No reliable evidence is there on case record to believe that the petitioner was in love relationship with any other person of her locality. The evidence of the O.P. is not corroborated by any other witness. The family members of the O.P. are also not examined to support the evidence of the O.P. Therefore it is to be held that the petitioner is living separately from the O.P. for sufficient reason.

25. It has been contended by the O.P. that the petitioner left the house of the O.P. as per her own will and as such she is not entitled to get maintenance. The O.P. has RPFAM 180 of 2024 Page 5 of 23 through the O.P. relied upon also took the plea that the petitioner has filed false case against him and executed Ext.A that she is leaving the matrimonial house as per her own will. In support of the contention of the O.P. the learned counsel for decision of the Hon’ble Court reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3174 decided in the case of Dev Narayan Halder … appellant vrs. Smt. Anushree Halder … I have gone respondent. decision of the Hon’ble Court. With due respect to the decision of the Hon’ble Court, it is found that the facts dealt by the Hon’ble Court in the said case are totally different in comparison to the present facts and circumstances of the case. The O.P. has failed to prove by adducing legal evidence that the petitioner left the house of the O.P. as per her own will and without any reason. Therefore the contentions raised on behalf of the O.P. which are mentioned in para-11 of the judgment can’t be accepted. Further the decision relied upon by the learned counsel that the O.P. is found not squarely applicable to present facts and circumstances of this case.”

7. Regarding the income of the petitioner, the learned Judge, Family Court has gone into the details of the evidence and discussions and findings at paragraph 21. The learned Judge, Family Court has relied on the law laid down in the following decisions of this Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court: Jagat Krishna Das and another –vrs- Ajit Kumar Das and other reported in AIR 1964 Orissa 75; Bandita Mishra reported in 2019(1) OLR 184; Ramakrishna Vrs. RPFAM 180 of 2024 Page 6 of 23