REKHA Vs. ASHOK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Shrimati Rekha claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant No. 1 Ashok filed an application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, claiming maintenance from the nor-applicant No. 1, on the ground that the non-applicant No. 1 has refused and has neglected to maintain her. The applicant alleged in her application that the applicant and the non-applicant No. 1 were married on 12-8-1980, according to Buddhist rites, as both of them were professing Buddha religion. The marriage was solemnised by Ehikshu Gyanraina (PW 4), who is examined as witness No. 4 for the applicant in this case. The applicant examined herself and two more witnesses in support of her case.

(2.) The non-applicant No. 1 contended in the trial Court that both the applicant and the non-applicant No. 1 were Mahar by caste. He denied that he was married to the applicant as alleged by her. He further contended that for a valid marriage they should have been married according to the Hindu rites because they were both Hindus governed by the personal law of Hindus. He further raised a plea that he was in a drunken state when he was taken to the marriage and that in that state he was forcibly married with the applicant. His consent if any to the aforesaid marriage was therefore, void. He examined two witnesses besides himself in support of his case.

(3.) The learned trial Court held in favour of the applicant and granted her maintenance of Rs. 100.00 per month, from the date of the application. The non-applicant No. 1 preferred revision and the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur, passed the order 5th Sept., 1983, allowing the revision. The principal contention raised before the learned Sessions Judge, was that the applicant has failed to prove that the applicant as well as the non-applicant No. 1 were converted to Buddha religion, and as such the marriage performed according to Buddha rites on 12-8-1980 was invalid and therefore the applicant could not be said to be legally wedded wife of the non-applicant No. 1. It is on this ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision. Being aggrieved the applicant wife has preferred this revision in this Court.