CHAYNA BEGUM BARBHUIYA Vs. MD UDDIN LASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the defendant is against the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi in T.A.No. 3/2010, whereby the learned first appellate court dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants affirmed and upheld the judgment and decree passed by learned Munsiff, Hailakandi in T.S.No. 64/2006.

(2.) The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed a suit (T.S. No. 64/2006) for declaration that the defendant No. 1 (respondent herein) is not the wife of the plaintiff and respondent No. 2 is not the son of the plaintiff and they are not entitled to any maintenance from the plaintiff. Declaration was also sought to the effect that the defendant No. 2 was the illegitimate son of the respondent No. 1. The pleaded case of the plaintiff was that he never married the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2 was not fathered by him. He also denied any sexual relationship with the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff stated that defendant No. 1 is a lady of ill repute and loose moral character and various people used to visit her residence. The defendant No. 1 got pregnant by some other person and falsely lodged a criminal case against the plaintiff alleging commission of rape, whereupon Lala P.S. Case No. 106/1999 under section 376 IPC was registered. In the said case, the defendant No. 1 brought the allegation that the plaintiff, upon promise of marriage committed sexual intercourse with her, as a result of which, she became pregnant and gave birth to defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 1 filed a case under section 125 Cr..P.C. seeking maintenance for the said defendant No. 2 claiming that the plaintiff was the father of the defendant No. 2. However, in the said proceeding, the defendant No. 1 did not seek maintenance for herself. The proceeding under section 125 Cr..P.C. claiming maintenance for defendant No. 2 was dismissed for default. The plaintiff was also acquitted in the sessions case arising out of Lala PS Case No. 106/1999 u/s 376 IPC. Thereafter, the defendant No. 1 again filed a proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and her son, the defendant No. 2, which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. However, on revision, the learned Sessions Judge granted maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- each for the defendant No. 1 and defendant no. 2. Against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the plaintiff preferred a revision petition before the High Court and also filed the instant suit seeking declaration inter alia that the defendant No. 1 and 2 were not his wife and son respectively.

(3.) The case of the defendant was that the plaintiff frequently visited the house of the father of the defendant No. 1 and developed affair with her and also established physical relationship promising to marry her, as a result of which, she became pregnant. However, later on, the plaintiff refused to marry her and therefore, she lodged an FIR. After lodging the police case, there was a village 'mel' and at the intervention of the elderly persons of the village, the plaintiff married the defendant No. 1 and thereafter, the defendant No. 2 was born. However, the plaintiff had driven out the defendant No. 1, and as such, she filed a petition seeking maintenance, which was registered as MR No. 185/1999. After filing of the said maintenance case, the plaintiff sought to settle the matter amicably and resisted the defendant No. 1 from taking steps in the maintenance case, as a result of which, the maintenance case was dismissed. However, later on she filed another case for maintenance, which is pending before the High Court.