MOHAN LAL Vs. JANKI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JANKI Devi filed a petition under Section 488 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure. She was claiming maintenance from Mohan Lal present petitioner. This application was allowed by the trial court. A sum of Rs. 500/ - has been fixed as the maintenance amount. The matter was taken in Revision before Additional Sessions Judge, Kishtwar. Revision petition stands dismissed. Further Revision petition has been filed in this court.

(2.) THE main argument put across by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that there subsisted no relationship of husband and wife. It is submitted that the petitioner did go to the house of the respondent, but marriage ceremony was not performed. This was because some quarrel took place and on account of this marriage ceremony could not take place. For this , reliance is being placed on the statement of one Vidya Lal. He is the Purohit (Pandit), who was supposed to prefer the ceremony. It is this witness, who stated that as quarrel took place the marriage ceremony could not be performed. He was sought to be confronted with the earlier statement made by him in the civil court. The case was adjourned thereafter summons were issued to him, but he refused to appear on the plea that on account of the old age, he is not in a position to attend the court. If this be the petition, then incomplete statement of Vidya Lal cannot be relied upon. Other oral evidence does not support the petitioner. As a matter of fact, documentary evidence available on the record goes against him. This evidence is in the shape of Certificate issued by the Army Authorities, which indicate that the present petitioner was paying maintenance to respondent - -Janki Devi. Again the voter list indicate the status of Janki Devi. She has been described as wife of Mohan Lal.

(3.) THE name of the respondent wife figures at S.No. 113 of the voter list. This list pertains to the year 1984 of Parliamentary Halqa 43 -46 of Udhampur Lok Sabha Seat. The voter List, which was prepared under the representation of the people Act is a public document and would be a good piece of evidence in terms of Section 35 of the evidence Act.