ANIRUDA Vs. FAMILY COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Gaura Devi, opposite party No. 8 filed an application under Section 123 Cr.P.C. before Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur which was registered as case No. 98 of 1990 claiming herself of be the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and stating that he has deserted her after treating her cruely and praying for Rs. 500/- as maintenance allowance. The revisionist contested the application saying that Smt. Gaura Devi is not his legally wedded wife; that the application under Section 125 Cr P.C. has been filed with totally false allegation and in the alternative pleading that he has no sufficient means to pay maintenance allowance to her. Judge Family Court decided both the points in favour of Smt. Gaura Devi and granted her maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month from the date of filing the application i.e. 4.4.1990. Aggrieved by it the revisionist has come to this Court.

(2.) Smt. Gaura Devi in support of her case examined P.W. 1 Narsing Pandey who acted an priest in the solemnization of the marriage of the parties. The second witness examined is Ram Net Pandey who is the neighbour of the parents of Smt. Gaura Devi. He had attended the marriage. He deposed about it. The third witness examined is Mohd. Haneef who is also a neighbour. He had supported the statement of Ram Net Pandey. The last witness examined is Smt. Gaura Devi herself. She corroborated the allegations of her application. The revisionist examined himself and Ram Daur who lives in his village and is a Harijan by caste. Both of them have denied the claim of Smt. Gaura Devi as the legally wedded wife of the revisionist.

(3.) Some documentary evidence in the form of voters list and extrects of Kutumb Registers were filed on behalf of the revisionist. In the voters list the name of the revisionist has also not been included. The Judge Family Court came to the conclusion that since the name of the revisionist also did not find place in these lists no inference could be drawn that Smt. Gaura Devi was not the wife of the revisionist. In the extract of Kutumb Register the absence of the name of the opposite party was explained by the Trial Court by saying that the opposite party remained for comparatively short period with the revisionist and therefore it is not surprising that her name was not entered in the Kutumb register. The opposite party no doubt filed the Kutumb Register of her father's place in which she has been stated to have been married to the revisionist. It was argued that this entry was a procured one and would not help the opposite party in any way. Even if this is assumed to be correct, it has to be seen from the oral evidence available on record as to whether she has proved herself to be the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. In the normal course no one would have stated herself to be the wife of another person unless she was married to him. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the opposite party was in any way connected with the revisionist so that she started saying that she was the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. The contention of the revisionist is that the father of the opposite party wanted her to marry with him and since he did not agree to it the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C has been filed with false allegations. The trial Judge noted that the opposite party had placed 'sindoor' after parting her, hairs and that an unmarried women would not have done so. It would not be out of place to point out here that it is not the allegations of the opposite party that she had married some one else and is now black-mailing her. The oral evidence has to be seen in the light of these circumstances,