BIRENDRA BIKRAM SINGH Vs. KAMALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second civil appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4-9-1982 passed by Sri Harish Chandra, District Judge, Bahraich, dismissing the Civil Appeal No.179 of 1982, preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16-7-1982 passed by Sri Jagdish, Civil Judge, Bahraich in Regular Suit No.99 of 1980.

(2.) Smt. Kamla Devi, plaintiff-respondent filed a suit bearing No.99 of 1980, against her husband Sri Birendra Bikram Singh and Smt. Roop Rani with whom Sri Birendra Bikram Singh married later on and two others praying that the decree in the nature of declaration be passed against Sri Birendra Bikram Singh and Smt. Roop Rani appellants Nos. 1 and 2, who were defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit to the effect that Smt. Roop Rani is not the legally wedded wife of Sri Birendra Bikram Singh and in alternative if their marriage stood proved then that marriage be declared null and void. It was also prayed that the appellant No.2 Birendra Bikram Singh be directed to pay Smt. Kamla Devi A maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per month. A prayer was also made that Sri Birendra Bikram Singh appellant No. 1 be directed to return the ornaments which were mentioned in the list to the respondent Smt. Kamla Devi.

(3.) Smt. Kamla Devi has averred in the suit that her marriage with defendant-appellant No.1 was solemnised about 11 years prior in accordance with Hindu Rites. After the said marriage the plaintiff lived with appellant-defendant No.1. The plaintiff was not educated while defendant No. 1 was a graduate and was working as a teacher in the City Montessori School at Lucknow. After some time his attitude towards the plaintiff underwent a change and he began to ill-treat her by giving out that she was illiterate and was not worthy to live with him in Lucknow and he also expressed a desire to enter into the marriage with another lady and perpetuated both mental and physically cruelties against the plaintiff. His parents also turned against her and they started torturing her. In the month of Vaisakh, 1977 she was allowed to participate into the marriage of her brother without taking her ornaments. Since, the year 1977 she has been living with her father and during the period neither the appellant defendant No.1 did take any care nor paid her maintenance while she was residing with her father. The appellant defendant No.1 married with Smt. Roop Rani appellant defendant No.2, in spite of the fact that she had filed the suit for injunction, restraining them from entering into the marriage. The plaintiff contended that the marriage of appellant defendant No.1 with appellant- defendant No.2 was illegal. The appellant-defendant No.1 has 25 acres of agriculture land and his monthly income is about Rs. 1200.00 Hence the plaintiff was entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per month.