NARAYAN LAL Vs. LEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This 482 petition has been filed by the husband against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Chittorgarh dated 10.3.2000, whereby the petitioner's revision was dismissed. The learned trial Court in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 500/- to two minor children Leela and Mukesh, however award of maintenance was refused to wife Bhagwani. The learned trial Court in para 12 held that Bhagwani is not entitled to maintenance as at the time of her alleged marriage with the petitioner Narain Lal, he had already a wife alive.

(2.) THE main controversy involved in the matter is as to whether the two children are the children out of loins of the petitioner or not ? The controversy arose because the petitioner Narain Lal had taken a positive stand about his having not contracted any sort of marriage with Bhagwani, and has also denied paternity of two children. On the other hand it has positively been contended that the applicant Bhagwani was married in accordance with Hindu Rites with one Narain s/o Magna Jat r/o Shambhupura and that the present petitioner Narain Lal was married with one Goga Bai d/o Dalchand Ji Jat and since this marriage of the present petitioner with Goga Bai did not yield any children, around the year 1985-86 he contracted a Nata marriage with one Pushpa Bai d/o Mithu Lal and from this union he has two children.

(3.) ASSAILING the impugned order, two fold submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly being that the learned revisional court has relied upon the Ration Card showing Bhagwani to be the wife of the present petitioner, while Ration Card is not proved on record by any evidence whatever, nor has it been marked an exhibit. It is contended that every document sought to be tendered into evidence has to be marked exhibit, and has to be proved in accordance with law, and therefore, the learned revisional court was in error in relying upon this piece of evidence for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion against the petitioner to the effect that Bhagwani was married with him. The next submission made is that a bare perusal of the statements of the witnesses examined on the side of the wife would show that there are glaring contradictions inter se between their evidence, the witnesses are interested witnesses, the witnesses produced being residents of village Sundari are inimical or in any case indisposed towards the petitioner and thus the learned courts below were in error in coming to the conclusion about paternity of two children.