VEENA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHAGWAN Din, J. By means of this criminal revision, the revisionists have as sailed the legality and propriety of the order dated 3-6-1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah in a complaint Case No. 2432 of 1998 (Prabhu Dayal v. Anand Kumar and others ).

(2.) THE opposite party No. 2, Prabhu Dayal settled the marriage of his daughter, Km. Sunita with Anand Kumar, son of the revisionist No. 2 Kishan Lal Kanaujia. After some time, when the opposite party No. 2 asked the revisionist No. 2 to fix a date of marriage, the latter refused to fix a date of marriage and ultimately he sent a message to the opposite party No. 2 that the marriage of his son shall not be solem nised with the daughter of the opposite party No. 2.

(3.) SRI Mayank Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the revisionists urged that no custom of payment of cash and giving the gift at the time of 'gond Bharai' by the father of the daughter is prevalent in the community to which the parties belong. However, he failed to refer any oral or documentary evidence to prove the custom prevailing in the com munity of the parties. It may be proved only by the evidence to be adduced by the parties as to what custom is prevailing in their community and society. The conten tion is, therefore, immature. The revisionists may, however, raise such ob jection after the evidence under Section 244, Cr PC is recorded.