Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 689 (JHR)

Lagan Mahato @ Nagen Mahato v. State of Jharkhand

2008-07-05

D.P.SINGH

body2008
Order The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro dated 17.4.2006 in M.P. Case No. 12 of 2002, by which a.p. NO.2, Alomani Devi, was allowed maintenance at Rs. 1,000/- per month being held as his wife. 2. The petitioner has raised serious objection regarding the finding that the O.P. No. 2 was his wife. According to this petition, the petitioner was never married with said Alomani Devi, who has lodged this false case on being tutored by enemies of the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that as per allegation made by O.P. NO.2, the present case has been filed after 20 years of her desertion. It is also submitted that O.P. No. 2 has got a son and married daughter, therefore the order dated 17.4.2006 be set aside. 4. The opposite party No. 2 has appeared through lawyer on notice. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. NO. 2. supported the impugned order. It was pointed out that before the Principal Judge, Family Court the petitioner has preferred not to adduce any evidence and failed to support this contention by way of written statement. Therefore, the present revision petition may be dismissed with cost. 5. I have gone through the materials on record. It is undisputed fact on record that the petitioner having appeared before the Principal Judge, Family Court and contested the claim by filing' written statement, however, that written statement has not been supported by any evidence brought on record, as he preferred not to examine the witnesses in support of his case. It also appears that the petitioner has cross-examined the witnesses examined on behalf of C.P. NO.2, by which it was asserted that the date of marriage could not be proved. 6. It is admitted fact between the parties that the alleged marriage took place nearly 25 years back and a rustic lady could not be presumed to remember the actual date of marriage which admittedly took place 25 years back. It further appears that the C.P. NO.2, by examining AW-5, has brought on record a voter list showing O.P. No. 2 as the wife of the petitioner. 7. It further appears that the C.P. NO.2, by examining AW-5, has brought on record a voter list showing O.P. No. 2 as the wife of the petitioner. 7. The petitioner has tried to contradict this suspect by producing Annexure-4, the nomination paper filled up by the petitioner on 4.8.87 before the BCCL where he is working, in which name of one Mamta Mahatain appears as his wife. . 8. Having considered the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I find that the petitioner has preferred not to adduce any evidence in support of his written statement and failed to prove before the lower court that O.P. NO.2 was not his wife. The court cannot come to rescue the negligent litigant. I further find that the court below in the impugned order dated 17.4.2006 has properly discussed all the materials on record and passed a reasoned order within its jurisdiction. 9. As such, I find no merit in this revision petition, which is, accordingly dismissed.