MASTER SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. SH. KEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein being minor through his natural guardian -cum -mother Smt. Leela Devi had instituted an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( for short "Cr.P.C.") before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba claiming therein an order being rendered upon the respondent herein for the latter paying to him the necessary expenses for his maintenance. The application was allowed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba and in a revision preferred therefrom by the respondent herein before the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, the latter Court accepted the revision petition and also reversed the findings besides the verdict recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba.

(2.) Since, the petition constituted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba was laid therebefore under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., hence, the petitioner herein was held by it to stand entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent herein, even if no clinching proof stood adduced therebefore by his mother of hers contracting a valid marriage with the respondent herein. However, the necessary ingredient for fastening liability upon the respondent herein to pay the necessary maintenance for the up keep and welfare of the petitioner herein was of, the mother of the petitioner and the respondent herein sexually accessing each other, also concomitant cogent proof in substantiation thereto stood enjoined to be adduced therebefore at the instance of the mother of the petitioner herein.

(3.) Be that as it may, the mother of the petitioner herein, Smt. Leela Devi in proof of hers solemnizing marriage with the respondent herein had while stepping into the witness box deposed of hers 3 -1/2 years prior to her deposition standing recorded before the Court concerned hers solemnizing marriage with the respondent herein at Bhalei temple whereat both garlanded each other, in succession whereto one Bainsu, the maternal uncle of Smt. Leela Devi, the mother of the petitioner herein, stands deposed by her to have met her thereat who entreated them to accompany him to his house. The factum as deposed by AW -1 Smt. Leela Devi of hers in the manner aforesaid solemnizing marriage with the respondent herein, though stands corroborated by Bainsu Ram, who stepped into the witness box as AW -3, yet the latter has not corroborated AW - 1 Smt. Leela Devi qua the factum of hers along with the respondent herein on entreaties made upon them by him, theirs proceeding to his house. Consequently, with AW -3 not supporting AW -1 qua the factum of his beseeching both to accompany him to his house whereat they, as contrarily deposed by AW -1, proceeded to, renders the deposition of AW -1 qua the factum aforesaid to stand obviously contrived by her, whereupon no reliance is imputable. In sequel, it is also to be concluded of even the factum of AW -3 witnessing the purported marriage solemnized inter se the mother of the petitioner, Smt. Leela Devi and the respondent herein holding no veracity. In aftermath, the solitary testimony of AW -1 qua hers purportedly solemnizing marriage with the respondent herein at Bhalei temple, testimony whereof stood concerted by her to be corroborated by AW -3 whereas with the testimony of AW -3 for the reasons aforestated standing concluded to be a contrived besides an interested testimony, whereupon the testimony of AW -1 wherein she named AW -3 to be the person who witnessed her marriage with the respondent herein also is to be construable to be a concoction in its entirety. Also, the factum of Ex.PA, a complaint lodged by the mother of the petitioner against the respondent herein wherein she has constituted allegations against the respondent herein of his committing offences constituted under Sections 420 and 376 of the IPC being reticent qua the factum of hers solemnizing marriage with the respondent herein does per se repel the factum of hers holding any relationship as a spouse of the respondent herein. Furthermore, with no graphic display occurring therein of hers solemnizing a marriage with the respondent herein does for reiteration countervail the effect, if any, of her deposition qua hers in the manner besides at the venue enunciated therein solemnizing a marriage with the respondent herein. It is also stated by the learned counsel appearing for the parties of Ex.PA standing withdrawn on 3.05.2004 by the mother the petitioner, whereupon hence a conclusion can also stand erected of the allegations constituted therein against the respondent herein qua his holding her to sexual intercourse, in sequel whereof she conceived a child in her womb, losing efficacy.