BHAGWANDAS Vs. SMT. BIRPATIYA @ BRAHASPATIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Session Judge of Singrauli arsing from Criminal Appeal No.121/2010 vide order dated 6.1.2012, by which, the order passed by the Nyayadhikari of Gram Nyayalaya, Baidhen dated 05.07.2010 was affirmed.

(2.) By the said order, an amount of Rs. 700/- (Rupees Seven Hundred) per month was awarded to the respondent as maintenance. The only ground for challenge in this case is that the respondent allegedly is not the married wife of the petitioner as so stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that there are findings of two courts below which are concurrent and are against the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondents. This Court has gone through the evidence on record. The respondent has examined herself as PW-1 and has stated in her examination-in-chief that her marriage had taken place 10 years prior to her statement before the Court. She also states that she has four children from the said marriage, three of them were boys and one was a girl. However, all the four children had died. She also states that the petitioner herein had stopped maintaining her and used to physically harass her. In her cross-examination, she has denied the suggestions to the effect that before being married to the petitioner she was married elsewhere. PW-2 is the father of the respondent who is also stated that he had got his daughter married to the petitioner. In paragraph-2, he also substantiates the fact that she has four children of which three are boys and one is girl. He also states that on account of the death of the children there was a dispute between the petitioner and respondent. PW-3 is an important witness who is Vendanti Ram Dubey. He is supposed to be priest who had got the marriage between the respondent and petitioner solemnized. He has stated in the examination-in-chief that on 30.06.1999 he had solemnized the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. He states that he knows both the parties and the respondent stayed with the petitioner about 8 years. He further states that a year before (before his statement in Court) the petitioner had got married to another woman on account which the respondent was staying with her father. In his cross-examination, nothing worthwhile to come out to show that the evidence is not worthy of reliance. PW-4 is Ramnandan who is the barber in the village. He has also stated in the examination-in-chief that he knows the respondent as the wife of the petitioner herein. He also states that the petitioner and the respondent had got married about 7 to 8 years before his statement in Court. He categorically states that the barat had come and the respondent was married to the petitioner in his presence. He also states that the witness No.3 was the priest in the said marriage. Again, in his cross-examination nothing worthwhile has come out in order to disbelieve the same.

(3.) On the other hand, the petitioner herein has been examined as defence witness no.1, his examination-in-chief is just of one line where he states that he does not know the respondent. Nothing else is stated in the examination-in-chief. Thereafter, in paras-2, 3 and 4 of the cross-examination, he has merely denied that he was ever married to the petitioner. DW-2 is one Abbas Ali who is bangle seller. This witness has been examined by the petitioner to show that the respondent was married elsewhere. In paragraph-2 of his examination-in-chief he says that the respondent was earlier married elsewhere but he does not know as to who she was married to. From the statement, it is apparent that there is no evidence besides the bald allegations that she was married elsewhere. No details with regard to that marriage has been given by the witness.