VEENA DEVI Vs. ASHOK KUMAR MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by way of revision against order dated 19-11-1998 of the Principal Judge of the Family Court at Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder prayer of the petitioner seeking maintenance from the sole O. P. (opposite party) has been rejected.

(2.) The petitioner had presented an application under Section 125 at Dhanbad seeking a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month by way of maintenance from the O.P. on the ground that she was married to the latter according to Hindu rites and customs on 9-8-1978. However, when she could not bear any child to the O.P. through the wedlock for a period of about three years, the latter started torturing her. Consequently, she was forced to make a written complaint in the 'desertion cell' of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, sometime in 1982 against the O.P. That complaint was registered in the 'desertion cell' as Misc. Case No. 73/82. During thependency of that proceeding, a compromise was arrived at, but the same did not materialise as the O. P. declined to execute a bond for not torturing her in future. However, in the month of August, 1984, a compromise was arrived at between them and she went to live at the matrimonial home with the O. P. However, in 1987, she was again driven away from the matrimonial home. Consequently, she started living with her father. After retirement of her father, she resides with her brother. According to her, in the meantime, the O. P. has married another woman named Anupam Devi without divorcing her. She has stated that the O.P. is a Govt. servant employed as a clerk in the department of Rural Engineering Organisation at Katihar and was drawing a salary of Rs. 5000/- per month. In spite of having such income he was neglecting to maintain her. Since she was not capable of maintaining herself, she presented the application for direction to the O. P. to pay to her the amount claimed.

(3.) On service of notice of the application, the O. P. appeared before the Principal Judge, Family Court and filed his show cause denying the allegation. According to him, the petitioner was never married to him. As a matter of fact, in 1978 when his father died, a negotiation for marriage of the petitioner with him had started by her father, but as the girl was not approved by him and his mother, the negotiation failed and the marriage could not be solemnized. Aggrieved by the failure of the negotiation for the marriage of the petitioner with him, the relatives of the petitioner threatened solemnisation of the marriage with the petitioner forcibly. To achieve their goal, they laid out all sorts of threats. However, the marriage was not solemnized. Therefore, the petitioner and her relatives adopted the attitude of black-mailing him by filing petition in the 'desertion cell' of the Dy. Commissioner, Dhanbad as also in the department of his employment with all sorts of false allegations. However, after inquiry, the petitions/so filed were dismissed. In his show cause he has further asserted that, as a matter of fact, he was married to one Anupa Devi of Katihar on 27-6-1985 and he is residing with her and the children born during the said wedlock. On such assertion, the O.P. pleaded for dismissal of the application of the petitioner. In support of their respective pleas, the parties adduced and by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, the following four points were formulated for determination :-