TIKARAM Vs. NETRAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal and First Appeal No. 196/77 (Smt. Ganeshibai and 3 others Vs. Tikaram alias Dabbal) arise out of the same judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Narsinhapur. The judgment in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of First Appeal No. 196/77.

(2.) Smt. Ganeshibai instituted a suit against Tikaram claiming maintenance for herself and for her 3 children-Basant Kumar, Netram and Kum. Meenabai. She averred that she was married with appellant Tikaram in kari form of marriage as was permissible and prevalent in Lodhi community to which the parties belong. Ganeshibai's case is that she was married with a person from N4okh but her husband died early in life and thereafter she shifted to kareli. Appellant Tikaram went to her and she was brought to his house as wife after marrying in kari form. She lived as wife of Tikaram for about 20 years and during this time, three children, namely, Bisant Kumar, Netram and Ku. Meena Bai were born. Tikaram was already married to her elder sister and, therefore, he started neglecting her. Hence she instituted proceeding, for maintenance against him. The case was compromised and Tikararn acknowledged in the proceedings that she was his married wife and agreed to the maintenances. Ganeshibai pleaded that marriage in kari form was prevalent in the community and no special rituals were needed for a marriage in kari form. There was a custom prevalent in the community that if a man of the community kept a woman of the same community as his wife, she got the status of a wife. Therefore, she was having the status of a wife all along the period she was living with Tikaram. She claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75.00 per month for herself and at the rate of Rs. 40.00 per month for each of the three children. She alleged that all the three children were minor. Tikaram pleaded that Ganeshibai was already married to one Khoragram at Kareli when she came to his house. He admitted that she was living with him and the children were born from him but that Ganeshibai was not his married wife. Since her husband was living when she had come to him she could not have been married to him unless she had been divorced by Kharogron. He pleaded that there were certain ceremonies that were required to be done even in kari form of marriage. The husband went to the house of the girl and there he gave ornaments and bangles made of lac and also made presents of apparels. When the bride is brought to the house, the community people are invited for a dinner. He denied any custom to the effect that if a woman lived with a man of the community for a long time she was accepted as the wife without any ceremony.

(3.) The trial Court found that the kari form of marriage was permissible in the Lodhi community to which the parties belonged. But it was not proved that Ganeshibai was married to Tikaram in the Kari form of marriage. After the death of her husband at Makh, Ganeshibai had shifted to kareli and was married to one Kharagram at Kareli for the second time. Therefore, Ganeshibai was living as a mistress of Tikaram for the last 18-19 -years. Tikaram was already married to Ramkali, sister of Ganeshibai when Ganeshibai had come to live with him. The trial Court was of the view that Tikaram would not be estopped from challenging the fact of marriage with Ganeshibai. In view of the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Netram and Ku. Meenabai were minors, were entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40.00 per month. The trial Court dismissed the claim of maintenance of Ganeshibai on the ground that she was merely a mistress and not a wife of Tikaram and since Basant Kumar had become major, he would not be entitled to maintenance from Tikaram.