DATTA Vs. NIRMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two proceedings can conveniently disposed of by the common judgment since both are arising from one proceeding namely Misc. Application No. 31/1995 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kallam. Misc.Appl. No. 31/1995 was initiated in the Court of learned Magistrate at Kallam by the present respondent. (For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as husband and wife.)

(2.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the wife submitted that the order passed by the Revisional Court is justiciable and there is no fault in enhancing the maintenance from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 500/-. In as much as, the learned Revisional Court has rightly reached to the conclusion that there is no error in the order passed by the Magistrate about the factum of the relationship between the parties.

(3.) Let us evaluate the arguments of the learned counsel for husband about the factum of marriage. Much stress is given during the course of argument by the learned counsel that the wife has not pleaded the exact date of marriage in the application u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. Perusal of the application reveals that there is no date mentioned in the application. However, the Court cannot overlook Exh.48, which is a notice given by wife to husband in the year 1990. More specifically the said notice is dated 24/12/1998. Further the receipt of the notice of Exh.48 is not at all denied by the husband. The receipt of the notice Exh.48 was the point of initiation of the proceedings u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. In the said notice, the fact was specifically asserted by wife that her marriage took place with the present petitioner on 11/06/1985. That was the first opportunity that was available with the husband to deny the factum of marriage. However, for the reasons best known to the husband/petitioner, though that notice was received by him, there is no reply to the said notice.