BHUPESHWARI DEVI Vs. RAM KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal and cross-objections are directed against the order dtd. 31/8/2012, passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla, vide which the appeal filed by the respondent (plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) was allowed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal and cross-objections are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for seeking declaration that the judgment passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla in Criminal Case No. 15/4 of 1999, decided on 30/3/2002, titled Bhupeshwari Devi and others versus Ram Krishan and upheld by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla in Criminal Revision No. 11-S/10 of 2002, titled Ram Krishan Vs. Bhupeshwari Devi decided on 10/12/2003 are null and void, not binding upon the plaintiff, based on the false testimony of the defendant with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from enforcing the judgment. It was pleaded that the plaintiff married Vidya Devi alias Asha Devi, the eldest sister of defendant no. 1, on 24/4/1978 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies. Seven children were born to the parties. The plaintiff does not have cordial relations with his brothers-in-law and sisters-inlaw since 1987. Defendant No. 1 filed a Criminal Case No. 15/4 of 1999, titled Bhupeshwari Devi and others versus Ram Krishan for seeking maintenance under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. alleging that she was the legally wedded wife of the plaintiff and the marriage was solemnized in February, 1995. She further alleged that defendants no. 2 and 3 were born to the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. Plaintiff denied any relationship with the defendants. Learned Magistrate granted maintenance to the defendants vide judgment dtd. 30/3/2002. The plaintiff filed a revision petition, which was dismissed. Proceedings were initiated against defendant no. 1 under Sec. 340 of Cr.P.C. and the Court held that defendant no. 1 had led false evidence alleging herself to be the wife of the plaintiff. A complaint was filed against defendant no. 1 in the Court of learned JMFC-II, Shimla. The defendants succeeded in getting the maintenance order in their favour by practicing fraud and active concealment of the facts. The plaintiff also filed a suit before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.3, Shimla bearing Civil Suit No. 42/1 of 2002, titled Ram Krishan versus Bhupeshwari Devi and others seeking a declaration that no marriage was solemnized with defendant no. 1 and defendants no. 2 and 3 are not his children. The suit was partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff and it was declared that defendant no. 1 is not the wife of the plaintiff. An appeal is pending before the learned District Judge, Shimla. Defendant No.1 obtained the maintenance in favour of herself and defendants No. 2 and 3. She also appeared as a witness and is being prosecuted for perjury. Her statement was false and the judgment based upon the false statement has no validity. Therefore, the suit was filed to seek a declaration.

(3.) A written statement denying the contents of the plaint was filed. A replication denying the contents of the written statement and affirming those of the pliant was also filed. Since the contents of the written statement and replication are not relevant in these proceedings; therefore, these are not being reproduced.