KALAWATI DEVI Vs. MOHAN PRASAD GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant appeal, the judgment dtd. 4/10/2018 and decree dtd. 5/11/2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Matrimonial Suit No.09 of 2011, CIS-Mat 816/2013 are under challenge.

(2.) The case of the appellant/opposite party no.1, as it appears from the records, is that the respondent no.1/petitioner filed a case before the learned Family Court seeking relief that the appellant/opposite party no.1 Kalawati Devi was not his wife and the respondent no.2/ opposite party no.2, Raj Kumari Devi was not the daughter of the respondent no.1/petitioner Mohan Prasad Gupta, submitted before the learned Family Court that his marriage was solemnized with one Prabhavati Devi in the year 1978 and out of the wedlock, they have six sons and three daughters. Five years prior to the filing of the petition before the Family Court, the appellant/opposite party no.1 Kalawati Devi, with her husband, started living in the house of the respondent no.1/petitioner as tenant. Two years thereafter, husband of the appellant/opposite party no.1 left her and he never returned. Since the husband of the appellant/opposite party no.1 did not return and people of doubtful character started visiting the appellant/opposite party no.1, the respondent no.1/petitioner asked the appellant/opposite party no.1 to vacate the house. Peeved by the demand of the respondent/petitioner, the appellant/opposite party no.1 and her daughter threatened the respondent no.1/petitioner that they would falsely implicate him and subsequently, the appellant/opposite party no.1 lodged Barun P.S. Case No.235/2009 in which the respondent no.1/petitioner was sent to jail. The appellant/opposite party no.1 also got registered a case against the son of the respondent no.1/petitioner. In order to save the future of his children, the respondent no.1/petitioner entered into a compromise with the appellant/opposite party no.1 and got bail on the basis of compromise. Afterwards, the appellant/opposite party no.1 and her daughter filed Maintenance Case No.10/2010 in the Family Court in which the learned Family Court, vide order dtd. 29/10/201, ordered for payment of Rs.2,000.00per month as maintenance. Thus, the respondent no.1/petitioner came to understand that the appellant/opposite party no.1 and her daughter wanted to ruin the future of the respondent no.1 as the appellant/opposite party no.1 was not the wife of the respondent no.1/petitioner and both of them are merely tenants. The marriage of the respondent no.1/petitioner was never solemnized with the appellant/opposite party no.1. On the aforesaid facts, the respondent no.1/petitioner sought declaration that the appellant/opposite party no.1 was not his wife and the respondent no.2/opposite party no.2 was not his daughter.

(3.) The appellant/opposite party no.1 contested the case of the respondent no.1/petitioner saying that her marriage was solemnized with Mohan Prasad Gupta, respondent no.1/petitioner and birth a daughter took place out of the wedlock, who was student of Intermediate at the time of filing of maintenance case. In her written statement, the appellant/opposite party no.1 has further submitted that in the certificate of Class-X, the name of the father of the daughter of the appellant/opposite party no.1 was mentioned as Mohan Prasad Gupta. The appellant/opposite party no.1 has further submitted that she filed Barun P.S Case No.312 of 2009 for cruelty against the respondent no.1/petitioner in which he was sent to jail and the matter was compromised.