PUSHPA DEVI; PRATIBHA; SANDEEP SINGH Vs. KHARAK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Tumul Nailwal, Advocate is present for the revisionists. There is no representation on behalf of the opposite party, though the name of his advocate appears in the list. The Court has, accordingly, rendered hearing to learned counsel for the revisionist and has itself looked into the impugned judgment as well as considered the merits of the instant revision.

(2.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.04.2007 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar, whereby the Misc. Case No.91 of 2004 u/s 125 Cr.P.C., filed by the revisionists along with her children, was dismissed.

(3.) On a careful perusal of the judgment, in question, it appears that Smt. Pushpa Devi, who claimed herself to have espoused with the opposite party in the year 1977, has averred that she got appointment in government service in the year 1982. This way, according to her own averments, she was a married woman at the time of appointment, and by that time, a period of almost five years had already elapsed. But, no reason was furnished by her as to why she did not mention in the service records her marital status, as also the name of her husband. Mere assertion in the cross-examination is not enough where she had ample opportunity to prove her version by adducing relevant evidence in this regard.