JUDGMENT Tarun Kumar Gupta, J. 1. THIS is judgment of reversal. 2. RESPONDENT No. 1 Mira Das filed a suit for declaration and injunction against appellant as well as respondent No.2 Railways Authority. Plaintiffs case, in short, was that plaintiff was married with Bholanath Das (since deceased) on 24th January, 1975 according to Hindu rites and customs. Marriage was consummated and a son named Tapan Das was born. Bholanath Das was a railway employee. Bholanath Das was addicted to drinking and had illicit relation with women. Bholanath drove out plaintiff along with her son and started to reside with defendant No. 1 Pratima Das alias Kachu Das. The plaintiff filed a matrimonial suit against Bholanath Das under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act and obtained a contested order of interim alimony. Bholanath Das died on 8th of November, 1994. Though defendant No. 1 Pratima Das was not legally married wife of Bholanath Das but defendant No.2 Railway Authority was trying to settle the family pension in favour of defendant No.1. Accordingly, plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. 3. PRESENT appellant as defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing written statement. She alleged that plaintiff was not married with Bholanath and never lived as husband and wife and that plaintiff was married to one Munu Das of Kumar Bazar, Ranigunj who has since died. Bholanath Das initially married one Sarala Das who died on 10th of October, 1972 leaving one daughter Arati and one son Manik. After death of Sarala, Bholanath Das married defendant No. 1 Pratima Das. Bholanath died on 8th of November, 1994 leaving Pratima as wife, one daughter Doli and one son Bidhan. Bholanath Das nominated Pratima as wife in his service book as well as in Provident Fund, gratuity and family pension. After death of Bholanath Pratima rightfully claimed family pension from defendant No.2 Railway Authority and is drawing the same from January, 1995. Bholanath Das did not contest the matrimonial suit filed by the plaintiff in right earnest. Plaintiff, Bholanath and defendant No. 1 all belonged to Baishnab community and the plaintiff taking advantage of his familiarity with Bholanath has filed this false case. 4. Bholanath Das did not contest the matrimonial suit filed by the plaintiff in right earnest. Plaintiff, Bholanath and defendant No. 1 all belonged to Baishnab community and the plaintiff taking advantage of his familiarity with Bholanath has filed this false case. 4. DEFENDANT No.2 Eastern Railway filed a written statement stating that widow pension was settled in favour of Pratima Das as per declaration of Bholanath Das given in his office in writing and that the Railway Authority was not aware of the alleged matrimonial suit or of relation between Bholanath and the plaintiff. All concerned adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. After contested hearing learned Trial Court dismissed the suit. 5. ON the basis of evidence adduced by both sides both oral and documentary, learned Trial Court ignored the order of allowing interim maintenance in favour of wife Mira Das to be paid by Bholanath Das in Mat. Suit No.22/18 of 1988 (Ext.1) as Bholanath Das declared defendant No.1 Pratima Das and her children as his wife and family members in office record which were marked exhibits (A, D and L). Learned Trial Court also observed that the suit was filed on 17th February, 1995 for declaring that defendant No. 1 was not entitled to get any family pension from defendant No.2 Railway Authority as alleged wife of Bholanath and also for injunction though family pension in favour of defendant No. 1 was already granted by defendant No.2 Railway Authority with effect from January, 1995. Accordingly, learned Trial Court observed that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had no cause of action. 6. LEARNED Lower Appellate Court, however, reversed said judgment and decree of learned Trial Court by observing that defendant No. 1 failed to state either in her pleadings or in evidence her exact date of marriage and also there were contradicting versions about said marriage in between Bholanath and defendant No.1, though plaintiff gave specific date of marriage and also gave sufficient oral evidence to that effect. Learned Lower Appellate Court further observed that it came out from the oral evidence of the mother of defendant No. 1 Pratima Das that plaintiff Mira Das was found to live in the house of Bholanath Das at some point of time. Learned Lower Appellate Court further observed that it came out from the oral evidence of the mother of defendant No. 1 Pratima Das that plaintiff Mira Das was found to live in the house of Bholanath Das at some point of time. Learned Lower Appellate Court further observed that defendant No. 1 Pratima Das was admittedly staying in the house of Bholanath Das as maid servant and later on Bholanath Das gave declaration in his office records that Pratima Das was his wife and that children of Pratima Das were his children and his family members. Learned Lower Appellate Court further observed that Ext.1 (order of alimony in Mat Suit No.22/18 of 1988) prima facie showed that plaintiff Mira Das filed said matrimonial suit against Bholanath Das under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act and after contested hearing obtained an order of interim alimony. Learned Lower Appellate Court, in view of entire materials on record, came to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence in respect of marriage in between plaintiff Mira Das and Bholanath Das in 1975 after death of Bholanath's first wife Sarala and that there was no convincing evidence of marriage in between defendant No. 1 Pratima Das and Bholanath Das on any specified. date and that even if there was marriage in between Bholanath and Pratima the same was void in view of subsisting marriage in between Bholanath and his earlier wife namely, plaintiff Mira Das. Learned Lower Appellate Court accordingly allowed the appeal by reversing the judgment of learned Trial Court. 7. AT the time of admission of this second appeal the following substantial questions of law were framed. (1) Whether Ext.1 could be conclusive as regards the marital status of the parties as held by the Lower Appellate Court. (2) Whether the learned Additional District Judge was justified in making a declaration dehore section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in view of the plaintiff having not claimed her own entitlement to any legal character or right to property but having merely challenged the appellant's marital status? 8. MR. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the appellant, has assailed the impugned judgment of Lower Appellate Court alleging that learned Lower Appellate Court gave much stress on Ext. 8. MR. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the appellant, has assailed the impugned judgment of Lower Appellate Court alleging that learned Lower Appellate Court gave much stress on Ext. 1 being a certified copy of a matrimonial suit showing direction of payment of interim alimony in favour of plaintiff Mira Das by her alleged husband Bholanath Das as proof of valid marriage between Mira Das and Bholanath Das, though said document by itself cannot establish a valid marriage in between Mira Das and Bholanath Das. In this connection he referred a case law reported in AIR 1972 Calcutta page 4 (Sisir Kumar Kundu v. Smt Sabita Rani Mandal) His next submission is that said order of allowing interim maintenance in favour of plaintiff Mira Das cannot be accepted as admission of the other party namely Bholanath Das regarding legal marriage between the parties. 9. HIS further contention is that learned Lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment of learned Trial Court without any convincing reason. According to Mr. Bhattacharyya learned Appeal Court can interfere when judgment is wrong and not just not right. In this connection he has referred a case law reported in (1995) 4 Supreme Court Case page 15 [S.V.R. Mudaliarv. Rajabu F. Buhari and Ors.) 10. THE judgment of learned Lower Appellate Court, Mr. Bhattacharyya submits, was full of conjectures and hypothesis, having no evidentiary basis. The last submission of Mr. Bhattacharyya is that impugned judgment of Lower Appellate Court suffers for giving relief to the party (plaintiff) beyond plaint. According to him, plaintiff did not pray for any declaration that she was legally married wife of Bholanath and that the family pension should be given to her and that on the other hand, she prayed for negative declaration that defendant No. 1 Pratima Das was not the legally married wife of Bholanath Das and that defendant No.2 Railway Authority should be injuncted to give family pension to her. According to him, for not praying specific declaration of her marital status the suit was barred under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and that the same was liable to be dismissed on that score alone. 11. MR. According to him, for not praying specific declaration of her marital status the suit was barred under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and that the same was liable to be dismissed on that score alone. 11. MR. Sushanta Kumar Laha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 plaintiff Mira Das, on the other hand, has submitted that learned Lower Appellate Court has analyzed the oral evidence on record as well as documentary evidence meticulously and came to a clear finding that plaintiff Mira Das was legally married wife of Bholanath Das (since deceased) and that during subsistence of said marriage Bholanath Das started to live with defendant No. 1 Pratima Das and had children through her and that marriage, if any, in between Bholanath Das and Pratima Das was void ab initio. 12. MR. Laha has further submitted that the case laws referred by learned counsel for the appellant have no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. In this connection MR. Laha has referred a case law reported in (2011) 1 CALLT 115 (HC) (Smt. Pratima Chaudhury v. Director of Pension and Ors.) to impress upon this Court that since the marriage, if any, in between Bholanath Das and Pratima Das was void being held during the subsistence of marriage in between Bholanath Das and Mira Das, Pratima Das was not entitled to claim family pension as legally married wife of Bholanath Das from the Railway Authority and that plaintiff Mira Das is entitled to claim the same. Mr. Laha has further submitted that in the plaint plaintiff Mira Das has specifically stated about the factum of her marriage with Bholanath Das with date and asserted that defendant No. 1 Pratima Das who was working in the house of Bholanath Das as maid servant cannot have valid legal marriage with Bholanath Das and that plaintiff Mira Das and not defendant No. 1 Pratima Das was entitled to claim family pension from the employer of Bholanath Das namely defendant No.2 Railway Administration. According to Mr. Laha in view of said specific averments and evidence adduced to that effect, it matters little whether there was specific prayer in the plaint for declaring that plaintiff was the legally married wife of Bholanath Das (since deceased) and was entitled to claim family pension from Railway Authority. According to him, dismissing the suit on that ground will cause grave injustice. According to him, dismissing the suit on that ground will cause grave injustice. 13. THERE is no denial that all concerned adduced both oral and documentary evidence in the Trial Court. It also came out from the materials on record that though plaintiff Mira Das specifically alleged in her pleadings as well as in her evidence that she was married with Bholanath Das on 24th January. 1975 but no such specific date was either averred or came into evidence regarding alleged marriage in between Bholanath Das and defendant No.1 Pratima Das. 14. ADMITTEDLY, Ext.1 is an order of a competent Court allowing pendente lite alimony in favour of wife Mira Das against her husband Bholanath Das in a matrimonial suit filed by Mira Das against Bholanath Das under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is true that said order (Ext. 1) by itself does not establish that the marriage between Mira Das and Bholanath Das was a legal marriage. But Ext. 1 goes to show that said order was passed after contested hearing and that Bholanath Das did not take any plea that Mira Das was not his wife. He only took a plea that Mira Das was not entitled to get any alimony as she was leading adulterous life. It came out that said suit did not proceed much further as Bholanath Das died later on. However, said exhibit at least showed that Bholanath Das recognized plaintiff Mira Das as his wife. Plaintiff gave oral evidence to establish her marriage with Bholanath Das on 24th January, 1975 according to Hindu rites. There is no contrary evidence on this issue. No one came from the side of Bholanath Das's paternal family, to deny and /or dispute the claim of Mira Das as legally married wife of Bholanath Das. Even Bholanath's daughter Arati and son Manik through Bholanath's first wife Sarala Das were not produced to deny the factum of marriage in between Mira Das and Bholanath Das on 24th January, 1975 as asserted by plaintiff. Rather it came out that defendant No. 1 Pratima's mother while deposing as defence witness admitted presence of Mira Das in the house of Bholanath Das though she did not state the status of Mira with reference to Bholanath. Rather it came out that defendant No. 1 Pratima's mother while deposing as defence witness admitted presence of Mira Das in the house of Bholanath Das though she did not state the status of Mira with reference to Bholanath. It also came from evidence on record as well as from the discussions in the judgment of Lower Appellate Court that Pratima Das at that point of time was working as a maid servant in the house of Bholanath Das and that marriage, if any, in between Pratima Das and Bholanath Das was held subsequent to 24th January, 1975. The appellant/defendant No.1 also failed to establish that plaintiff was legally married to one Monu Das of Kumar Bazar, Raniganj. In Sisir Kumar Kundu's case (ibid) it was held that order of alimony passed under Hindu Marriage Act does not itself show valid marriage. Said proposition is not disputed. 15. LEARNED Lower Appellate Court did not come to the conclusion of valid marriage in be haven plaintiff Mira Das and her husband Bholanath Das solely on Ext.1 (order of alimony in Mat Suit No.22/18 of 1988) but also on the Oral evidence on record. 16. I have already stated that learned Lower Appellate Court came to the finding of fact regarding valid marriage in between Mira Das and Bholanath Das not solely on the Ext. 1 but also considering other evidence on record and circumstances of the case. Learned Lower Appellate Court also took note of the fact of nominating defendant No. 1 Pratima Das and her children as Bholanath's family members and nominees in various papers on 29th December, 1989. Learned Lower Appellate Court made elaborate discussions on that score and observed that after passing of said order of alimony in favour of wife Mira Das in 1988, Bholanath Das took steps to nominate Pratima Das who was admittedly living with Bholanath Das as his wife and gave birth of two children, in his office papers including pension paper. Learned Lower Appellate Court has rightly observed that said action on the part of Bholanath in 1989 was nothing but to make provisions for Pratima Das who was living with Bholanath as his wife by depriving his legally married wife Mira Das. Apart from that just by nominating a lady as wife in office papers does not prove by itself valid and/ or legal marriage between the panties. 17. Apart from that just by nominating a lady as wife in office papers does not prove by itself valid and/ or legal marriage between the panties. 17. LEARNED Lower Appellate Court has taken note of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, in its correct perspective and came to correct findings of fact that plaintiff Mira Das was the legally married wife of Bholanath Das and that during subsistence of said marriage Bholanath Das started to reside with defendant No. 1 Pratima Das as his wife. LEARNED Lower Appellate Court rightly reversed the judgment of learned Trial Court who was swayed mainly by office papers wherein Bholanath nominated Pratima Das as his wife in different papers including pension paper. As learned Lower Appellate Court justifiably reversed the findings of fact of learned Trial Court the case of S. V. R. Mudaliar (ibid) has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. 18. ADMITTEDLY, respondent No. 1 plaintiff did not make any specific prayer for declaring her as the legally married wife of Bholanath Das and that she is entitled to get family pension on that score and rather prayed for negative declaration that defendant No. 1 Pratima Das was not legally married wife of Bholanath Das and was not entitled to get family pension from the Railway Authority. But it came out from the averments of the plaint that plaintiff categorically averred that on 24th of January, 1975 she was married with Bholanath Das according to Hindu rites and customs and that Pratirna Das was not the legally married wife of Bholanath Das though lived with him and that plaintiff Mira Das and not defendant No. 1 Pratima Das was entitled to get family pension from defendant No.2 Railway Authority after death of its employee Bholanath Das. It further appears that plaintiff also led evidence to that effect during trial. Defendant No. 1 Pratima Das tried to deny said marriage in between Bholanath Das and Mira Das and there was cross- examination to that effect. As such in spite of absence of said specific prayer there were averments as well as evidence by both sides in support of their respective claims. In this connection, the case law Kedal Lal Seal and Another v. Hari Lal as reported in AIR (39) 1952 Supreme Court page 47 may be referred to. As such in spite of absence of said specific prayer there were averments as well as evidence by both sides in support of their respective claims. In this connection, the case law Kedal Lal Seal and Another v. Hari Lal as reported in AIR (39) 1952 Supreme Court page 47 may be referred to. In that case the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Court would be slow to throw out a claim on mere technicality of pleading when the substance of the thing is there and no prejudice is caused to the other side, however clumsily or in artistically the plaint may be worded. It was further held that in any event, it is always open to a Court to give a plaintiff such general or other relief as it deems just to the same extent as if it had been asked for, provided that occasions no prejudice to the other side beyond what can be compensated for in costs. I have already stated that both the parties adduced evidence in support and also against the claim of plaintiff about his legal marriage with Bholanath Das on 24th of January, 1975 and her claim towards family pension. As such, section 34 of the Specific Relief Act was not a bar in this case to grant relief to the plaintiff. 19. IN view of the discussions made above, I am of opinion that judgment impugned does not call for any interference in this second appeal. As a result, the appeal is dismissed on contest. 20. THE order dated 14th of March, 2002 passed by learned Judge, Fast Track Court, First Court of Burdwan in Title Appeal No.22 of 1997 is hereby affirmed. However, I pass no order as to costs. 21. SEND down lower Court record along with a copy of this judgment to the Lower Court expeditiously. Appeal dismissed.