RAM GOPAL Vs. VIDYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present proceedings have arisen between the parties because of the order dtd. 5/12/2002 passed by learned CJM Sirmour at Nahan, vide which, Vidya Devi, Kumari Raksha, Surinder and Master Lokesh (petitioners/defendants before learned Trial Court) were awarded maintenance @ ? 500/- each from Ram Gopal (respondent/plaintiff before learned Trial Court). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) The plaintiff (Ram Gopal) filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that defendant No.1-Vidya Devi is not his legally wedded wife, defendants No.2 to 4 are not his daughter and sons and they are the wife, daughter and sons of defendant No.5. They are not entitled to get maintenance @? 500/- each per month and the order passed by learned CJM, Nahan, learned Sessions Judge, Nahan and this Court are not binding on the plaintiff. A consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining defendants No.2 to 4 from getting the maintenance @ ?500/- per month each was also sought. It was asserted that plaintiff and defendant No.5 are the sons of Bija Ram(defendant No.5) who is the elder brother of the plaintiff. The marriage between defendant No.5 and defendant No.1 was solemnized as per Hindu Rites, Ritual and Customs about 25 years ago. Defendant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of defendant No.5. Defendants No.2 to 4 are children of defendant No.1 and defendant No. 5. Defendant No.2-Raksha was born on 25/10/1987. Defendant No.3 was born on 10/1/1990 and defendant No.4 was born in the year 1992. Defendants No.3 and 4 were admitted to the School by defendant No.5. Defendant No. 5 also showed the other defendants as members of his family in the ration card. The voter list for the year 2002 also shows defendants to be related to each other. The plaintiff was married to Kala Devi in the year 1991. Uma Devi, Jyoti, Sarojani, Anjna, Anuj and Sachin were born to the plaintiff and Kala Devi. Defendant No.2 was married to Suresh Chand. The name of defendant No.2 was deleted from the family of defendant No.5-Babu Ram and was included in the family of her husband- Suresh Chand. The plaintiff was working as a daily wage worker in HPPWD and he was regularized as a work-charged Beldar. Defendant No.1 filed a petition seeking maintenance for herself and the other defendants from the plaintiff. This petition was allowed and maintenance @ ?500/- each per month was awarded by learned CJM. The revision petition was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge and Cr.MMO filed before this Court was also dismissed. Defendant No.1 is claiming maintenance based on the order passed by the Criminal Court. Defendant No.1 was requested not to claim any maintenance for herself and Defendant No.4 but she refused. Defendants No. 2 and 3 have become major and they are not entitled to any maintenance; hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

(3.) The suit was opposed by defendants No.1 to 4 by filing a written statement taking the preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability and cause of action, the suit being collusive, the suit being barred by limitation and the question of the validity of the marriage having been decided in the previous litigation. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits. It was asserted that no marriage was solemnized between defendants No.1 and 5. Defendant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the plaintiff. Defendants Nos.2 to 4 are the daughters and sons of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The name of defendant No.1 was entered as the wife of Ram Gopal in the Gram Panchayat and names of defendants no.2 to 4 were recorded as children of the plaintiff. Defendants No. 3 and 4 never got any education from Government Primary School, Beyong Tatwa but they got their initial education from Primary School,Ajroli. The plaintiff in connivance with defendant No.5 procured manipulated applications and ration cards. The documents are forged and not binding on the rights of the defendants. Defendant No.1 is an illiterate lady and wrong entries have been made in the Pariwar Register by taking advantage of her illiteracy. Defendant No.1 was recorded as the wife of Ram Gopal in the record of the tubectomy operation conducted on 14/12/1992. The Courts had discussed the evidence in the previous proceedings and concluded that defendants No.1 is the wife and defendants No. 2 to 4 are the children of the plaintiff. These findings are binding upon the plaintiff; therefore, it was prayed that the present suit be dismissed.