LAWS(GJH)-2009-10-38

KISHOR PRAHALADBHAI YADAV Vs. GEETABEN MAGANLAL

Decided On October 26, 2009
KISHOR PRAHALADBHAI YADAV Appellant
V/S
GEETABEN MAGANLAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the original respondent challenging the judgment and order dated 31. 7. 2007 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Valsad in Maintenance Application No. 15 of 2005 as confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad in his order dated 23. 11. 2007 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 47 of 2007.

(2.) THE present respondent had filed application seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner herein. The application was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent herein is not his wife and further there is nothing to show that he has sufficient means to maintain the respondent. Both these grounds were rejected by the learned Civil Judge.

(3.) WITH respect to the question of marriage, he relied on documentary as well as oral evidence to hold that the petitioner and respondent together residing as husband and wife. The respondent had produced the photographs of both of them together and the veracity which was not questioned by the petitioner. She also produced the voters list showing her name and address and also ration card which included her name along with petitioner. She also produced the telephone bill at the same address in her name. All these documents had gone substantially unchallenged. She had also produced the records purported to have been signed by the petitioner as guardian of her son. On the basis of such overwhelming evidence the learned Judge was pleased to hold that the respondent and petitioner together residing as husband and wife for years together. The allegation of the respondent that the petitioner was during the contract work earning more than Rs. 20,000/- in a month. The petitioner has not produced any counter evidence to show his level income. The learned Judge therefore awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- per month to the respondent herein. It is his application of the petitioner was dismissed, hence this petition.