BIKRAMA @ BIKA PARIDA Vs. ADAR DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party, Adar Dei claiming herself to be the legally married wife of the Petitioner, Bikram @ Bika Parida, alleged that they lived together happily as husband and wife for three years, whereafter the Petitioner started ill -treating her and ultimately drove her out of his house and refused to receive her back and maintain her when she had to file the Misc. Case No. 185 of 1979 before the S. D. J. M., Bhubaneswar under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance from her husband at the rate of Rs. 100/ - per month. The Petitioner resisted the claim of the opposite party asserting that she was not his legally married wife and never lived with him in his house at any time. After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned S. D. J. M. found that the opposite patty was the legally married wife of the Petitioner and was, therefore, entitled to claim maintenance from him and accordingly passed orders directing the Petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/ - per month to the opposite party by his order dated 18 -8 -1983. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has preferred the present revision.

(2.) IN this context, as in the Court below, the Petitioner contended that the opposite patty is not his legally married wife. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner strongly contended that\ from the material placed on record it cannot be said that the opposite party is the legally married wife of the Petitioner. So, the main point for determination in this revision is, whether the evidence adduced in the case does not justify the finding arrived at by the learned Magistrate that the opposite party is the legally married wife of the Petitioner.

(3.) THE opposite party, Adar Dei, is an illiterate lady and examined herself as p.w. 1. It is in her evidence that she married ' the Petitioner about six years back and that their marriage was solemnised in the presence of a priest, barber and Ors. and that after such marriage the parties lived happily for two years when she gave birth to a son but the child expired after five months. Her evidence discloses that she was subsequently ill -treated by her husband and ultimately was driven out of !:lis house. The evidence of the opposite party that her marriage with the Petitioner was duly solemnised and they lived together happily as husband and wife for two years, when she gave birth to a son through him and that the child survived only for five months could not be shaken in cross -examination. P. ws. 2 and 3 are independent witnesses, who corroborate the version of the opposite party regarding her marriage with the Petitioner and about a son being born out of their wed -lock. P.w.5 is the mother of the opposite party and p.w. 6 is her. brother, and they too depose fully supporting the case of the opposite party. P. w. 7, the watcherman of the village, stated on oath about the parties living together as husband and wife and also about the birth of a son to the opposite party through the Petitioner. P. w. 4 is the Sarpanch of the village and he deposed that the Petitioner had admitted in the Panchayat Meeting that he married the opposite party. The opposite party claiming herself to be the married wife of the Petitioner made a written representation (Ext. 1) to the Panchayatdars of the village, alleging as to how she was cruelly treated by her husband (the Petitioner) and the Sarpanch, p.w. 4 proves the said representation Ext. 1. The evidence of the Sarpanch, p.w. 4 discloses as to how he and the other members of the Panchayat considered her representation and ultimately gave the decision in her favour in writing marked Ext. 2 directing the Petitioner to receive her back. Thus, the evidence of p.w. 4 and the recitals in Exts. 1 and 2 reveal that the Panchayatdars of the village received and treated the Petitioner and the opposite party as husband - and wife and such evidence is relevant under Section 50 of the Evidence Act. It is on a careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case that the learned S. D. J. M., found that the opposite party is the legally married wife of the Petitioner.