Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 478 (PAT)

Kusheshwar Singh v. Sudha Devi

2004-04-27

NAGENDRA RAI, P.N.YADAV

body2004
Judgment Nagendra Rai and P.N.Yadav JJ. 1. The appellant has filed this appeal under section 19 of the Family Court Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment dated 30.8.1997 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, dismissing the suit filed by the appellant for declaration that respondent-Sudha Devi is not his legally wedded wife and the order passed in Maintenance Case No. 6/1986 under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) is illegal and void; and the respondent be restrained from taking any step for implementation of the aforesaid order of maintenance. 2. The materials on the record show that the appellant and the respondent both are handicapped persons and the appellant is employed in the Department of Education, Government of Bihar. According to the appellant, the respondent is not his legally wedded wife. The father of the respondent approached him for marriage, but he refused and, thereafter, a false claim of maintenance was made under section 125 of the Code, which was wrongly allowed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barh, and a direction was issued for payment of Rs. 500/- per month by way of maintenance to the respondent. 3. The case of the respondent, on the other hand, is that her marriage was solemnised with the appellant on 4.2.1982 at village Salimpur, P.S. Bakhtiarpur, District Patna, according to the Hindu rites and customs. She was taken to her husbands house at village Wadpur, P.S. Hatidah, District Patna and she lived there for about three and half years. Thereafter, she was being treated with cruelty and was also tortured for not fulfilling the demand of dowry, as a result of which she fell ill. On the pretext of providing her proper treatment, she was told by the appellant and his family members that she was being taken to Patna, but he brought her to Salimpur Halt Station and left her at her fathers house and since then she has been living with her father. Efforts were made by the relations to settle the matter but when no tangible result could come out, then she had no option but to file a petition under section 125 of the Code for her maintenance, which was considered and allowed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barh. 4. Efforts were made by the relations to settle the matter but when no tangible result could come out, then she had no option but to file a petition under section 125 of the Code for her maintenance, which was considered and allowed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barh. 4. The appellant examined himself as a witness, whereas, the respondent examined six witnesses, including herself as 0.P.W.1, her father Ram Charitar Sharma as O.P.W.2, the Purohit and Hajam, who participated in the marriage as O.P.W.3 Anand Sharma and O.P.W.4 Ram Lakhan Thakur, respectively, a co-villager Birendra Sharma as O.P.W.5 and one Maha Devi as 0.P.W.6, who is said to have supplied elephant pitcher made of mud for the marriage ceremony of the respondent. 5. The trial court, after having considered the matter, found that there was valid marriage between the parties and no case for grant of relief as sought for by the appellant was made out and, accordingly, dismissed the suit. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no cogent and reliable evidence to show the marriage between the parties and the trial court has committed an error both on fact as well as in law in coming to the conclusion that the respondent-Sudha Devi is the legally wedded wife of the appellant. 7. As stated above, the appellant has examined himself as a witness and has denied the factum of marriage. His version has not been supported by any co-villager or even by his any relation, whereas, the respondent has examined six witnesses. Though the court below has disbelieved the evidence of O.P.Ws. 3, 4 and 6, but has relied upon the evidence of O.P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 as well as on the entry in the voter-list and has come to the conclusion that she is the legally wedded wife of the appellant. 8. We have perused the evidence on the record and found that the respondent in her evidence has given description and details of the marriage, which have been supported by her father and co-villager (O.P.Ws. 2 and 5). Nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the appellant to show that their evidence lacks confidence and is not to be accepted. The trial court has considered their evidence in detail. 2 and 5). Nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the appellant to show that their evidence lacks confidence and is not to be accepted. The trial court has considered their evidence in detail. We have also perused their evidence and on perusal thereof we do not find any reason to take a different view in the matter. No doubt, the voter-list of 1984 does not contain the name of the respondent and the name of one Gunja Devi appears to have been wrongly mentioned as the wife of the appellant. The said entry in the voter-list shows that the marriage of the appellant was solemnised prior to 1984 and as such his version that he was subsequently married with another lady in the subsequent year is falsified by the said entry. We fully agree with the reasonings given by the trial court and nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the appellant to take a different view in the matter. We are of the view that the appeal lacks merit and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. P.N.Yadav, J. 9 I agree.