Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 135 (CHH)

GAYARAM SAHU v. TERAS BAI

2011-04-05

T.P.SHARMA

body2011
ORDER : T.P. SHARMA, J. 1. Criminal Revision Nos. 668/2010 and 117/2011 filed against the order dated 26.11.2010 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Janjgir in Criminal M.J.C. No. 94/09 are being disposed of by this common order. Vide aforesaid order, the Judge, Family Court has awarded maintenance of Rs. 500 per month to Bhuneshwar, an illegitimate son of Gayaram but has refused to award of maintenance to Teras Bai on the ground that she is not legally wedded wife of Gayaram. 2. By filing Criminal Revision No. 668/2010 applicant Gayaram has challenged legality and propriety of award of maintenance to Bhuneshwar, an illegitimate child and by filing Criminal Revision No. 117/2011 applicants Teras Bai and Bhuneshwar have challenged legality and propriety of order refusing maintenance to Teras Bai and award of inadequate maintenance to Bhuneshwar. 3. As per record of the Family Court, on the ground of customary marriage Teras Bai has filed application for maintenance against Gayaram for herself and for her son Bhuneshwar u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. as legally wedded wife and son of Gayaram. Same was denied by Gayaram and has alleged that Teras Bai is not his legally wedded wife and Bhuneshwar is not legitimate or illegitimate son. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the Judge, Family Court has arrived at a finding that Teras Bai was residing with Gayaram as a wife during subsistence of her first marriage, therefore, Teras Bai is not legally wedded wife of Gayaram but Bhuneshwar is an illegitimate son of Gayaram. On the aforesaid ground, maintenance of Rs. 500 per month has been awarded to Bhuneshwar. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and record of the Family Court. 5. Mr. Arun Kochar, learned Counsel appearing for applicant Gayaram in Cr.R. No. 668/2010 submits that evidence adduced on behalf of the parties are sufficient to prove the fact that Bhuneshwar is not son of applicant Gayaram, but the Family Court has committed illegality by awarding maintenance to him. 6. On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Chaterjee, learned Counsel appearing for applicants Teras Bai and Bhuneshwar in Cr.R. No. 117/2011 submits that Teras Bai and Bhuneshwar have adduced sufficient evidence to prove the fact that Teras Bai is legally wedded wife of Gayaram and Bhuneshwar is legitimate son of Gayaram. 7. 6. On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Chaterjee, learned Counsel appearing for applicants Teras Bai and Bhuneshwar in Cr.R. No. 117/2011 submits that Teras Bai and Bhuneshwar have adduced sufficient evidence to prove the fact that Teras Bai is legally wedded wife of Gayaram and Bhuneshwar is legitimate son of Gayaram. 7. As per evidence of Teras Bai (PW-1), evidence of other witnesses, documents and statements of Gayaram and others, during subsistence of first marriage with Mahesh Teras Bai has claimed customary marriage with Gayaram. Evidence adduced on behalf of the parties are sufficient to establish the fact that Teras Bai is not legally wedded wife of Gayaram, therefore, the Family Court has rightly rejected the claim of maintenance of Teras Bai. 8. As regards the question and entitlement of maintenance to Bhuneshwar, evidence adduced on behalf of the parties are sufficient to prove the fact that Bhuneshwar is an illegitimate child of Gayaram and he is entitled for maintenance. 9. Considering the age of Bhuneshwar the Family Court has rightly awarded maintenance of Rs. 500 per month. I do not find any illegality in the order impugned warranting interference at the instance of applicant Gayaram or Teras Bai. Consequently, Criminal Revision Nos. 668/2010 and 117/2011 are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed.