VIJAYANAND Vs. PRERNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forth with. Heard finally by consent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought leave of this Court to file on record re-joinder to the written statement filed on record together with copies of documents filed along with it and also a pursis which is accompanied by copies of depositions of the respondent before the Court of J.M.F.C., Gondia. Leave, as sought for, is granted. The documents are taken on record.

(2.) According to learned counsel for petitioner, entire case of the respondent is based upon falsehood in the sense that respondent has categorically stated before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Gondia, that although she is a Doctor, she is not earning any income, but the fact is otherwise. He submits that the respondent had been working as a Doctor and earning some income not only in the month of June but also continuously thereafter. She specifically admitted that on 13.7.2011 she was working as a lecturer in Homeopathic College, Gondia. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this admission has been given by her during the course of her evidence before Balaghat Court. He submits that these facts would be sufficient to establish the claim of the petitioner that respondent is not dependent upon the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent, strongly opposing the petition, submits that the admission given by the respondent before Balaghat Court has appeared in the statement recorded by police under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, cannot be read in evidence. He submits that if presumed that it can be read in evidence in the proceedings under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, still it will only show that the respondent was working in June 2010, and nothing more. He points out from the record of the petition that application under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed on 30.9.2010 and it was allowed by J.M.F.C. Gondia on 15.5.2010. He submits that during this period of time, the petitioner has not brought on record that the respondent was working as a Doctor and earning something. Therefore, according to him, there is no substance in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed.