NAURANGI Vs. SATYA NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Plaintiff-wife's second appeal in a suit for maintenance. The fact of the marriage between the parties is disputed but the defence was that there was a dissolution of the marriage between the parties in accordance with caste custom. The trial court decreed the suit but the lower appellate court has reversed the same.

(2.) The fact of the dissolution of the marriage by caste custom was witnessed by a document which is in the nature of a stamped agreement said to have been executed by the parties. It is Ex. A-4 on the record. The Plaintiff denied her thumb impressions on the stamp paper. The lower appellate court has believed the defence evidence including that of the Finger Print Expert and has come to the finding that the marriage between the parties was in fact dissolved, as alleged by the Defendant, by caste custom. It is further noticeable in this connection that the husband had initiated a criminal proceeding under Section 498 Criminal Procedure Code against the wife and her brother. That matter was compromised and it was agreed between them that they will get the dispute settled by the Panchayat of the Biradari. The settlement alleged to have been so arrived at was the dissolution of the marrige on payment of Rs. 500/- in cash as compensation by the husband to the wife, in accordance with the decision of the Panchayat held after the compromise in the said criminal proceeding.

(3.) Mr. Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellant argued firstly that the lower appellate court had not come to grips with the reasons given by the trial court for believing the Plaintiff's case and disbelieving the Defendant's case, and that otherwise too the judgment of the lower appellate court was vitiated in law. Having heard Mr. Sankatha Rai on this point and having gone through the judgment of the lower appellate court I do not find it possible to say that the judgment is based on no evidence or is otherwise vitiated in law. The fact of the Panchayat is corroborated by the document, Ex. A-4. Its genuineness was denied by the Plaintiff but the thumb impression on the document was found to be hers, according to the opinion of the Government Hand-Writing Expert who was examined on behalf of the Defendant. I think that the lower appellate court has rightly relied on that opinion for holding that the thumb impression on the document, Ex. A-4, alleged to be that of the Plaintiff was really hers, and if that be so it can not be disputed that the parties had agreed to dissolve the marriage and to live separately with effect from 12th September, 1966.