Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 591 (RAJ)

Shakuntla Devi v. Shiv Charan Sankhla

2003-04-21

A.C.GOYAL

body2003
Honble GOYAL, J.–This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 17.1.2003 whereby learned A.C.J.M. No. 2, Alwar dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for interim maintenance. (2). The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner-wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband-respondent with the averments that she was married to Shiv Charan in the year 1954 and one daughter was borne out of this wedlock. Her husband Shiv Charan retired from Government Service in the year 1995 and at that time she came to know that he has got relations with one Kamlesh and or raising objection by her, she was expelled by her husband from his house in June, 1996. Her husband having sufficient means has neglected to maintain her and she is unable to maintain herself. Vide another application, she made a prayer for interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. A number of affidavits and some other documents were filed in support of this application. (3). The respondent husband in his reply denied his marriage with the applicant. He pleaded that he was married to Kamlesh and has got three sons out of that marriage. It was also stated that name of Kamlesh as his wife has been recorded in Government Service record and he had no relation whatsoever with Smt.Shakuntla Devi. A number of Affidavits in support of this reply were submitted. (4). Learned A.C.J.M. having heard counsel for both the parties came to this conclusion that prima facie there is no evidence to prove that Smt. Shakuntla Devi is married wife of Shiv Charan, although Kumari Saroj is daughter of Shiv Charan but on that ground it cannot be taken to be prima facie a proof of marriage of Smt. Shakuntla Devi with Shiv Charan. Application for interim maintenance was dismissed. (5). Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife referred affidavits and documents and argued that prima facie the petitioner is proved to be the wife of Shiv Charan. Reliance is placed upon one judgment of this Court delivered in Nandlal vs. Smt. Shankari (1), wherein it was observed that ordinarily, a Hindu Lady would not go to such an extent by making such false accusations against a person that he was father of her child. Reliance is placed upon one judgment of this Court delivered in Nandlal vs. Smt. Shankari (1), wherein it was observed that ordinarily, a Hindu Lady would not go to such an extent by making such false accusations against a person that he was father of her child. Learned counsel for the respondent husband supported the impugned order and argued that there is no ground to interfere with the finding of the learned A.C.J.M. (6). I have considered that rival submissions. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife mainly relied upon some photo graphs with regard to marriage of Saroj, who is daughter of Smt. Shakuntla Devi and Shiv Charan. According to Smt.Shakuntla, birth certificate of Saroj wherein fathers name is recorded Shiv Charan and a certificate issued by Board of Secondary Education wherein also the name of father of Kumari Saroj is shown as Shiv Charan. On the basis of these documents the learned A.C.J.M. observed that at the most Shiv charan is proved to be the father of Saroj but there is no evidence to show prima facie the marriage of Smt. Shakuntla Devi with Shiv Charan. The learned A.C.J.M. having discussed the entire material produced by both the sides gave this finding and the said finding does not appear to be perverse. Thus there is no good ground to interfere with the finding of the fact while deciding the application for maintenance. The question of the marriage of Smt. Shakuntla Devi with Shiv Charan is still pending which has to be decided in a main application pending under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (7). consequently, this petition is hereby dismissed and learned A.C.J.M. is directed to decide the main application under Section1 25 Cr.P.C. as early as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Record of the trial court be sent back within seven days from today.