PUNIBEN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Puniben claims to be the wife of opponent No. 2 Tejabhai Modabhai. The petitioner filed Criminal Case No. 45 of 1980 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate (15th Court). Ahmedabad and prayed that she was the legally married wife of opponent No. 2 and that out of the wedlock a son, named Raju, was born. It was alleged that opponent No. 2 was negligent in maintaining her and without there being any reason whatsoever he was not taking care of herself and minor son Raju. Therefore she claimed that she was entitled to stay separate and claim maintenance, for herself and for the minor son Raju. Opponent No. 2 appeared before the trial Court and contended that there was no marriage whatsoever between the parties and that the child alleged to have been born out of the lawful wedlock was not his child. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. On overall appreciation of evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein i. e. Puniben, was the legally married wife of opponent No. 2-Tejabhai, that opponent No. 2 Tejabhai and neglected to maintain her and that the petitioner-wife was entitled to claim Rs. 100.00 per month as and by way maintenance for herself and Rs. 50.00 per month as and by way of maintenance for the minor son Raju. This judgment and order was delivered by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (15th Court), Ahmedabad ; on Dec. 30, 1980.

(2.) The matter was carried in revision by opponent No. 2. He filed Criminal Revision Application No. 32 of 1981 in the Court of City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. The learned City Sessions Judge (Court No. 20), who heard the revision application, held that there was no legally valid marriage between the petitioner and opponent No. 2. The petitioner was not the legally married wife of opponent No. 2 and therefore, she could not claim any maintenance from the opponent No. 2. The learned City Sessions Judge also held that minor child Raju was also not entitled to claim maintenance whatsoever. This order was passed by the learned City Sessions Judge on May 8, 1981. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid judgment and order.

(3.) Counsel for opponent No. 2, i.e. Tejabhai, has produced on record a copy of the judgment delivered by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No. 1021 of 1981. That suit was filed by opponent No. 2 against the present petitioner. In that suit a decree has been passed as prayed for by the plaintiff (opponent No. 2 herein) declaring that the defendant i. e. Puniben, the petitioner herein was not the plaintiff's wife. The aforesaid judgment and decree has been passed on Nov. 29, 1984. It may be noted that the learned City Sessions Judge also held on appreciation of evidence that the' petitioner was not the legally married wife of opponent No. 2 Tejabhai. It is further stated by the counsel for the opponent No. 2 that the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court has become final and the same has not been challenged by either party to the proceedings. In above view of the matter it has got to be held that the petitioner is not the legally married wife of the opponent No. 2 and hence the question regarding the grant of maintenance to the petitioner by opponent No. 2 does not survive.