KAMLESH SHARMA ALIAS KAMLESH KUMAR Vs. USHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OPPOSITE party set judicial process in motion seeking grant of maintenance cost, on accusation of matrimonial discord with her husband, sexual aberration committed by the petitioner husband, maltreatment meted out to her pursuant to contracting marriage with another lady, namely, Geeta Devi, the husband refusing to maintain her and eventually ousting her from the matrimonial house. After judicial process was set in motion, petitioner was issued show cause to answer the charges brought by the opposite party Usha Devi, and in the show cause that was filed, without denying the factum of marriage in so many express words, petitioner simply resisted the legality of marriage with a female who did not possess characteristics of a woman.

(2.) IN the proceeding that eventually commenced, applicant, who is opposite party before this Court, examined as many as nine number of witnesses including herself, her father, family members, priest, barber, maid servant and others who had been stating with sustained consistency before the Court below about marriage of Usha Devi having been solemnised with petitioner in the year 1974. Witnesses would make narration before the Court that after opposite party got employment and was employed as Junior Engineer in Irrigation Department, he contracted another marriage with one Geeta Devi, in the year 1985 and it seems that for the offence of bigamy and cruelty allegedly meted out to Usha Devi, the wife sought his prosecution in another criminal case which was eventually dropped, in view of accord between the parties. Narrations made by the witnesses have been broadly spelt out in the judgment of the court below which did not require reiteration, However, that is discussed with brevity for appreciation of the contentions raised at Bar on behaif of the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner outnumbered the applicant in examination of witnesses, as not less than 11 witnesses were examined on his part, ostensibly to counter the allegations attributed to him either about factum of marriage or any torture meted out to her. The witnesses would rather state before the Court that in fact opposite party was married with a girl at Mithapur, Patna. Some witnesses had been stating that the bride was residing at Parmanandpur, Patna and narration made by these witnesses can be noticed with brevity. Though Jogendra Prasad (D.W.1) resides in village Mai, he did not respond to some questions which could show his familiarity with the petitioner or his household affairs. Ram Babu Yadav (D.W.2) hails from village Dihuri and in similar vein and term, he too states that the petitioner was not married with opposite party. He states to have learnt about marriage from others. He does not know as to whether petitioner was employed in service. He was not in a position to say as to where the other male members of the fam ily were married. Bashishtha Prasad (D.W.3), who hails from village Mai, states that opposite party did not reside with the petitioner, and similar had been the evidence of Shamful Devi (D.W.4), who claims to be sister of the petitioner. She stated that her brother was married in Parmanandpur at Patna and he was never with opposite party, with whom she was alleged to be married. Narrations almost in similar vein and terms were made also by other witnesses, and the petitioner too refuted all the accusations attributed to him and would deny the factum of marriage with opposite party.