NANIKRAM GOVINDRAM MAKHIJA Vs. SUNITA ALIAS INDIRA NANIKRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of proceedings initiated by the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kirkee. According to the respondent, she is the lawfully wedded wife of the petitioner, heaving been married to him on 19th of May, 1968. She stayed with her husband, who is the petitioner, for four months after the marriage, and thereafter she was driven out by him. The present application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed in the year 1975, that is, nearly seven years after the marriage. The petitioner, resisted this application by denying that he was ever married to the respondent at all. According to him, a betrothal ceremony had taken place sometime in the month of May 1968, and though the date of the marriage had been fixed, the event itself did not take place. The question, therefore, which was to be decided by the learned trial Magistrate was whether there was a marriage between the petitioner and the respondent as alleged by the petitioner.

(2.) Evidence was led on behalf of the respondent and this consists only of oral testimonies of herself, her mother and two other witnesses. The evidence led on behalf of the petitioner consisted of the oral testimony of the petitioner himself and another witness. A clerk from the rationing department was examined for proving an application submitted by the mother of the respondent showing that the maiden name of the respondent was included in that application long after her alleged marriage with the petitioner. It must be said at the outset that there is no contemporaneous documentary evidence to show the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent. Indeed there is no document at all evidencing the marriage.

(3.) The learned trial Magistrate by his judgment and order dated 8th of March, 1977 held that the respondent had failed to prove that she was married to the petitioner as alleged by her. While so holding he took among others, the following circumstances into consideration :---