LAWS(GAU)-2001-11-3

GIRISH MEDHI Vs. KALPANA MEDHI

Decided On November 29, 2001
GIRISH CH. MEDHI Appellant
V/S
KALPANA MEDHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr P. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms B. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) Respondent Kalpana Medhi filed an application under Section 125, CrPC, being Misc. Case No. 209/97 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari stating interalia that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner Girish Medhi and they lived as husband and wife and she gave birth to a female child on 5.9.97. However, she was driven out from the husband's house while she was carrying pregnancy and the husband refused maintenance to her and her child. Petitioner contested the proceeding denying all the allegations of marriage and paternity of the child. After recording the evidence learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 23/3/1999 refused to grant maintenance whereby the respondent preferred C.M. Case No. 16/99 before the Sessions Judge, Nalbari. Vide impugned judgment dated 8/10/1999 learned Sessions Judge refused to grant maintenance to the wife; but directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to her illegitimate child. Hence the present revision by the petitioner father.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence on record that the daughter was born to Kalpana through the petitioner. Learned Sessions Judge has quoted the evidence of the respondent 1st party and I have perused the evidence on record, wherein the respondent has categorically stated that she had sexual relationship with the petitioner prior to the marriage and thereafter the marriage was solemnised before the Sub-Registrar and subsequently before the villagers. They lived as husband and wife and while she was under pregnancy, she was driven out. It seems that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to appropriate the evidence on the point and as such the learned Sessions Judge in view of the materials on record granted maintenance to the minor child. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding is not supported or based on evidence on record has got no force.