Ashok Kumar vs Rajni and Others

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—Smt. Usha Rani and Respondents filed an application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of maintenance. It had been alleged that Smt. Usha Rani is the wife of Petitioner and Respondents are the children of the Petitioner and Smt. Usha Rani. Petitioner controverted the claim of Smt. Usha Rani to be his wife. He further contended that Respondents are in no way connected with the Petitioner, either out of the wedlock or being illegitimate children. The case of the Petitioner was that he was never married to Smt. Usha Rani. She is a suspicious character and wanted to blackmail the Petitioner and grab money from him. On the alleged date of marriage i.e. 1.7.1985, Petitioner''s case was that he was at Yam Nagar attending N.C.C. Camp from 1.6.1985 to 7.7.1985. Petitioner even contended that Smt. Usha Rani had never stayed in his house.

During the pendency of the petition/application, an order was passed granting ad-interim maintenance Petitioner did not comply with the order and his defence was struck off.

After recording the evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate held that Petitioner was married to Smt. Usha Rani and Respondents are their children. The Petitioner was directed to pay maintenance at Rs. 150/- p.m. for each of the Respondents. Since Smt. Usha Rani was herself working, the maintenance was denied to her.

Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

As is apparent from the brief resume of the facts given above, the main contention of the Petitioner was that Smt. Usha Rani was not his legally wadded wife and Respondents are not his legitimate or illegitimate children. Therefore, the first and foremost question that comes up for consideration is as to if Smt. Usha Rani was the legally wadded wife of the Petitioner and that the Respondents are their children.

We know from the decision in the case of Sumitra Devi Vs. Bhikan Choudhary, that the marriage necessarily has to be established in accordance with the Hindu Law. The Supreme Court in this regard observed that before there is a valid marriage, the religious rites must be performed. In paragraph 3 it was held:

There is no doubt that in order that there may be a valid marriage according to Hindu law, certain religious rites have to be performed. Invoking the fire and performing Saptapadi around the sacred fire have been considered by this Court to e two of the basic requirements for a traditional marriage. It is equally true that there can be a marriage acceptable in law according to customs which do not insist on performance of such rites as referred to above and marriage of this type give rise to legal relationship which law accepts.

It is on the touchstone of the aforesaid that the facts of the present case have to be analysed. Suffice to add that there can always be evidence related and co-related to establish the factum of marriage. Smt. Usha Rani appeared as PW-1 and stated that she was married to the Petitioner on 1.7.1985 at Patiala according to Hindu rites. It was solemnised after taking the rounds of the holy fire. Certain gifts were given by her mother. She produced photographs with the Petitioner and also the birth certificates of two of the Respondents Ex.A5 and A6 in which the Petitioner is shown to be the father of the children.

It is not merely the birth certificates that clinch the issue. The photographs Mark P-2 and P-3 also lend due corroborate8on to it. There is no satisfactory explanation forthcoming as to how these photographs came into being. What was the conduct of the Petitioner with Sunita Rani? Keeping in view the said photographs, the only plausible finding can be that Petitioner was married to Smt. Usha Rani. Petitioner, therefore, must be believed that he was married to Smt. Usha Rani and Respondents are their children merely because Smt. Usha Rani is described to be elder in age is no ground to conclude that she could not be married to him.

Reliance on behalf of the Petitioner was placed on a certificate to allege that he was attending an N.C.C. camp at Yam Nagar from 11.6.1985 to 7.7.1985. This certificate has not been produced in evidence and in any case it is not signed. No reliance can be placed upon such a certificate. Otherwise also, nothing prevented the Petitioner to come to Patiala during the pendency of the said course and marry Smt. Usha Rani. Consequently, the findings of the trial Court in this regard must be approved. There is no ground to interfere.

It is established, therefore, that Respondents are the children of the Petitioner. He is under legal obligation to maintain them which he has not done. The petition, therefore, must fail.

for these reasons, the revision petition being without merit must fail and is dismissed.