SATYA DEVI Vs. BRIJ LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal was admitted for hearing on the following question of law :

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that a suit was feed on 18th April, 1983 by Brij Lal, plaintiff-respondent, claiming a decree for declaration that Ram Nath defendant-appellant is not his son. Consequential relief was also prayed by him restraining the defendants-appellants from proclaiming Ram Nath as his son. It was alleged, by the plaintiff that his marriage with appellant Satya Devi was solemnised in the year 1962-63. After marriage, the relations remained cordial only for a couple of months but thereafter the wife deserted him and started living in her father's house in village Morton, Maga Anantpur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi. The plaintiff belongs to village Sedhot in the same ilaqa.It is also alleged that a petition seek dissolution of marriage by divorce under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was preferred by him,in which ex-parte decree of divorce was granted, which was latter on set aside on wife's application and again after contest, decree of divorce was granted but ultimately when the appeal was preferred by the wife, the matter was patched- up in the high Court during the pendency of the appeal. The decree, as passed by the District Court was set aside and petition for divorce was dismissed. As such, reconciliation took place on 9th July, 1981.

(3.) It is also alleged that after July 1981,the wife resided in his house for 20/25 days and thereafter, again she deserted him in the month of Sept., 1981. Thereafter, he never visited the wife's house and even the wife did not visit or stayed with him. The plaintiff alleged that on 15th Jan., 1983, Ram Nath was born to Smt. Satya Devi. Thereafter, she approached Gram Panchayat Sedhot for getting the birth of the child recorded in the record of the Panchayat. The plaintiff opposed such a move of his wife, since according to him, Ram Nath born to Smt. Satya Devi on 15th Jan., 1983 was not his legitimate child. He had access to his wife at any time when the child might have been begotten. He was serving in the Indo-Tibetian Border Police and was posted in Delhi. He came on leave during the year 1982 only twice, namely, from 23rd Jan., 1982 to 2nd Feb., 1982 and from 3rd June, 1982 to 27th July, 1982 and even during this period, he had access to his wife and thus the decree prayed for was claimed by him.