KRISHAN PAL SINGH Vs. BABLI @ KAMLESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent claimed herself to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and alleged neglect and refusal, as such, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was allowed on 7.5.2007, in Case No. 15 -4 of 2005, by the learned trial Court and awarded maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/ - per month from the date of filing of the petition i.e. from 27.6.2005 with costs quantified at Rs. 2,000/ -.

(2.) IN appeal, the learned Sessions Judge reduced the amount of maintenance to Rs. 2,000/ - per month, however maintained the cost imposed by the learned trial Court.

(3.) SHRI B.C. Negi, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the essentials of the marriage were not proved by the respondent by leading cogent and reliable evidence and further that the petitioner belongs to a tribal -area where there is a particular custom to perform the marriage. The respondent could not prove that there existed any legal marriage between her and the petitioner thus findings of the learned trial Court to the contrary were incorrect. To support his version, he cited Punnakkal Sreedharan v. Vellai Padmini and others, 1992 Cri.L.J. 3562 and Smt. Santosh Kumari v. Dalip Chand, 1998(1) Shim.L.C. 146.