SOMO KUJUR Vs. SMT. ABHIRAMA JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The private respondents though have entered appearance through their counsel, but were absent on the previous date and not present even today.

(2.) The gravamen of the dispute arisen in the present writ application is in relation to a marriage certificate produced by the defendant / petitioner herein but alleged to be changed during the proceedings of the trial. The Plaintiffs / In -laws of the petitioner - wife instituted a Title Suit bearing no. 39 of 2004 in the Court of Munsif, Lohardaga seeking a decree that the defendant is not a legally married wife of Late Anand Kumar Jha and Plaintiffs are entitled to receive all benefits provided by the Government on account of death of Anand Kumar Jha, who the plaintiffs alleged was killed by the M.C.C. Terrorist group. The family of the deceased is entitled to a Government job apart from other compensation. In these foundational facts, they sought the aforesaid relief from the Trial Court relating to a declaration that the Defendant / petitioner herein is not a legally married wife of the said Anand Kumar Jha.

(3.) The plaintiffs made an application for sending the Exhibit -A, the marriage certificate adduced by the Defendant/ petitioner herein for inquiry and verification of the age of the typing as well as signature over the certificate of marriage by scientific investigation. The Defendant had during the course of hearing on the said application produced photo copy of the Ext.A and contended that the original document had been replaced( Ext.A.). The learned Trial Court on perusal of both the documents came to the opinion by the impugned order dated 5.2.2011 (Annexure -3) that signature of the priest Ram Prasad Pandey is different in both the documents. It also found that the said Ram Prasad Pandey is no more alive. So the signature of the priest may be verified by admitted signature of the said priest Ram Prasad Pandey. Learned Trial Court under such facts and circumstances directed the defendant no.1 to produce D.W.1, Dashrath Pandey, who had earlier proved the Ext.A along with a document bearing signature of the priest in the form of any certified copy of sale deed or any individual document signed by the said priest before 3.12.1997. After that the admitted signature of the priest as well as signature on Ext.A will be sent to the expert for opinion at the cost of the parties.