Saroj Singh and another v. Babban Singh), under Section

Heard learned counsel for revisionist and learned AGA for the State. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage of revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no. 2 on

1.5.1984 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The parents of the revisionist had given sufficient dowry and gifts in the marriage to opposite party no. 2 and his family members but even though they were not satisfied with the dowry and demanded Rs. 50,000/- as additional dowry. They harassed and continued harassing the revisionist due to non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry. In the meanwhile, the couple was blessed with a son who was around 14 years at the time of filing of application for maintenance under Section 124 CrPC in the year, 2019. Ultimately, the opposite party turned down the revisionist from home on 20.3.2019 at around 8.00 AM after snatching her valuables and ornaments and she had to take shelter at her parental home. Since thereafter, opposite party no. 2 never took care of knowing the well being and whereabouts of the revisionist. Opposite party no. 2 is an able bodied person and works in Mumbai and earns around Rs. 70,000/- by construction work. He also possesses agricultural land at his native place. He next submitted that during continuation of marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no. 2, latter solemnized marriage with one Madhuri Singh on 30.1.1996 in an illegal manner and three children were born out of his wedlock with Madhuri Singh in the year, 1996, 1999 and 2001. The elder daughter of opposite party no. 2 and his second wife Madhuri Singh is also married and she is blessed with two children. Opposite party no. 2 often visits Mumbai for his livelihood and his second wife lives at his native place. He further submits that the revisionist has been residing with opposite party no. 2 till the year, 2019 and during this period she used to visit her matrimonial home from her parental home situated at Samstipur (State of Bihar). However, she had to come back to her matrimonial place on the death of her father as now there is no one to take care of her at her parental place. He next submitted that the revisionist has stated in her evidence that she is residing at Panchayat Bhawan lying at her matrimonial village. She also stated that opposite party no. 2 has stated before the Court below that she intends to get DNA examination of Prince whom the revisionist claims born out of her wedlock with opposite party no. 2 and now revisionist has no objection thereon and the revisionist is ready to get the paternity of her son tested through the process of DNA testing, if so directed by competent Court. He also submits that the Court below arbitrarily and wrongly dismissed the application for maintenance filed by revisionist with finding that she is not legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2. Lastly it is submitted that the matter may be remanded to court below for deciding the question of grant of maintenance to the revisionist and marital status of the parties afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the revisionist to adduce additional evidence on the question of marital status of the parties. He further submits that even her sister-in-law (nanad) and her brother are ready to depose in support of marriage of parties. Revisionist has also filed a complaint under Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2012 except monetary relief and residence order. She has also filed an injunction suit against respondent no. 2 in the year 2022. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that all the documents on which reliance has been placed by the revisionist in support of her claim of being legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2, have been prepared after filing of maintenance petition in the year, 2019 as it is quite natural that as per her own pleadings revisionist was married to opposite party no. 2 in the year 1984 and her son Prince born out of their wedlock born in the year, 2005, i. e. after twenty one years, in as much as, it does not sound natural that during the same period from 1995 to 2019 the revisionist and Madhuri Singh, the alleged second wife were residing together in the same house at their matrimonial place. Learned counsel further clarified that this is categorical stand of opposite party no. 2 that only Madhuri Singh is legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2 and no marriage was ever solemnized between revisionist and opposite party no. 2, he has filed marriage certificate of opposite party no. 2 and Madhuri Singh in support of his claim. He further submitted that a categorical finding by the court below is that the applicant is not the legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2, which is based on cogent evidence and revisionist has miserably failed to prove this fact before the Court below that she is legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2 and for that reason court below declined to grant any maintenance to the revisionist. He lastly submitted that the contention of learned counsel for revisionist that the revisionist had been living with opposite party no. 2 for fifteen years from the year, 1984 as his wife, is not supported by evidence of the revisionist herself recorded during trial, wherein she has stated that she came back to her parental village five years ago from Samstipur and her statement was recorded on 11.10.2023 and it means that she came to the village of her alleged husband after the year, 2018. She has got her name added wrongly in Pariwar Register by opposite party beneath Madhuri Singh to take undue benefit. According to the pleadings and sworn testimony of the revisionist who is original applicant before the court below, her marriage with opposite party was solemnized on 1.5.1984 according to Hindu rites and rituals. She resided with opposite party at his place for 10-15 years and during this period, she was blessed with a girl child who died after two years of birth and subsequently a son, namely, Prince was born, for which maintenance has also been claimed. The revisionist is an illiterate woman and she is highly confused about timing and year. However, she has specified two dates in her evidence; the date of her marriage with opposite party no. 2 and 20.3.2019 when she was allegedly turned out by opposite party around

8.00 AM from his house. She has stated in her evidence that she stayed at her parental place for sometime situated at Samastipur (State of Bihar) village Matiyau. Her father Tarkeshwar Singh is alive but her mother has died twenty years ago. She lived at her parental place five years ago of her evidence, which was recorded on 11.10.2023 and at present she is residing at community centre of Panchayat Bhawan situated in the village of opposite party no. 2. Her name was entered in the family register of opposite party no. 2 after her marriage. Her son Prince is aged about twenty two years. He was around fourteen years of age at the time of filing of the application in the year, 2019 for maintenance. She has stated age of her son in her evidence at one place eighteen years, and at other place, twenty two years. She has stated that she stayed at village Guttha, her matrimonial place, for 10-15 years. She after living 10-15 years at village Guttha, went to her parental place at Samastipur (State of Bihar) and came back to village Guttha in the year 2019 and she has been residing there since May, 2019. Gram Pradhan and respectable persons of the village of opposite party no. 2 have come up in her support and they got her named entered in Family Register. Her name was also recorded in the voter list. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she had filed the maintenance case on asking of Gram Pradhan of village Guttha and some other villagers. She stayed at Panchayat Bhawan of village Guttha for three years. She is not aware of the number of children born out of wedlock of Babban Singh (opposite party) with Madhuri Singh. Babban Sing resides in Mumbai. She filed maintenance case in Samastipur (State of Bihar), which she abandoned. D. W. 1 Babban Singh (opposite party no. 2) has stated that the applicant had got her name entered in the family register and voter list in fake manner showing herself as his wife at the behest of some land mafiyas. He was never married to Saroj Singh and Prince is not his son. The occurrence, which is stated to have occurred on 20.3.2019, as stated by the revisionist, is false fake and concocted one. His date of birth is 1.1.1970. He is around 52-53 years of age. He is living in Bombay for 5-6 years. His marriage was solemnized on 30.1.1995. In fact, some land mafiyas and erstwhile Gram Pradhan, Sarita Devi and village secretary had produced the revisionist as his wife to grab his land, who has posed herself as wife of witness Babban Singh (opposite party no. 2). He works as clerk in Bombay. His marriage with Madhuri Singh was solemnized on 30.1.1995 when he was 20-21 years of age. He possesses 2-2/12 bhighas land in his name. His land is entered in the joint name of the witness and his brother. His monthly salary is Rs. 11,000/-. His elder daughter Priya Singh is around 27 years of age. His father died 6-7 years ago at the age of seventy years. He was not married in the year, 1984. In the affidavit dated 8.5.2023, his age is shown as fifty five years. It is wrong to say that Saroj Singh is his first wife. D. W. 2 Madhuri Singh has stated that her marriage with Babban Singh was solemnized in the year, 1995. She is blessed with three children and the eldest daughter is twenty eight years of age , who is married and blessed with two children also. In fact, the then Gram Pradhan Sarita, her husband, Ramakant Yadav and B. L. O. hatched a conspiracy and produced Saroj Singh as the wife of Babban Singh and got her named entered in the family register of Babban Singh to grab the valuable land of her husband. The Gram Pradhan of her village is on inimical terms with her and her husband. Her husband was twenty two years of age at the time of her marriage. He is not acquainted with Saroj Singh. He did not know about her whereabouts. The documents filed by Saroj Singh are fake and forged. The revisionist has stated that due to some constraints she could not adduce proper evidence during hearing of her maintenance case. She is ready to get D. N. A. test of her son prince done in support of her plea that she is legally wedded wife of opposite party. She is also willing to produce some witness in support of her plea who belong to family of both the sides. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the revisionist could not produce any other evidence, except herself, during hearing of the case by the Court below. Revisionist had filed maintenance case on 25.5.2019 which was decreed ex parte by the order of the court below on 24.1.2020 and Rs. 4000 + Rs. 2000 per month has been awarded therein as maintenance to the applicants respectively. Revisionist had also filed application under Section 128 (2) CrPC for recovery of maintenance amount and non-bailable warrant and recovery warrant was issued against opposite party no. 2 on 29.1.2021. However, subsequently the case was decided on merits by the court below and maintenance application filed by the revisionist was dismissed by the impugned judgement and order dated

18.1.2024. Considering rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and that the name of revisionist having been entered in family register of respondent no. 2 although the documents produced by revisionist in support of her claim pertain to the period of filing of application for maintenance in the year, 2019, this Court is of the considered view that the revisionist being a single woman, could not adduce sufficient evidence in support of her claim filed before the court below and now she is ready to produce some other evidence in support of her claim. Thus, it is in fitness of things to afford her an opportunity to lead evidence in support of her claim that she is legally wedded wife of respondent no. 2. Consequently, impugned order dated 18.1.2024 passed Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur in Maintenance Case No. 426/2019 (Saroj Singh and another Versus Babban Singh), under Section 125 CrPC is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the court below to hear and decide afresh after affording opportunity to lead additional evidence to the revisionist before the court below. Accordingly, revision is allowed. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 HR

Heard learned counsel for revisionist and learned AGA for the State. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage of revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no. 2 on

1.5.1984 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The parents of the revisionist had given sufficient dowry and gifts in the marriage to opposite party no. 2 and his family members but even though they were not satisfied with the dowry and demanded Rs. 50,000/- as additional dowry. They harassed and continued harassing the revisionist due to non-fulfillment of demand of additional dowry. In the meanwhile, the couple was blessed with a son who was around 14 years at the time of filing of application for maintenance under Section 124 CrPC in the year, 2019. Ultimately, the opposite party turned down the revisionist from home on 20.3.2019 at around 8.00 AM after snatching her valuables and ornaments and she had to take shelter at her parental home. Since thereafter, opposite party no. 2 never took care of knowing the well being and whereabouts of the revisionist. Opposite party no. 2 is an able bodied person and works in Mumbai and earns around Rs. 70,000/- by construction work. He also possesses agricultural land at his native place. He next submitted that during continuation of marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no. 2, latter solemnized marriage with one Madhuri Singh on 30.1.1996 in an illegal manner and three children were born out of his wedlock with Madhuri Singh in the year, 1996, 1999 and 2001. The elder daughter of opposite party no. 2 and his second wife Madhuri Singh is also married and she is blessed with two children. Opposite party no. 2 often visits Mumbai for his livelihood and his second wife lives at his native place. He further submits that the revisionist has been residing with opposite party no. 2 till the year, 2019 and during this period she used to visit her matrimonial home from her parental home situated at Samstipur (State of Bihar). However, she had to come back to her matrimonial place on the death of her father as now there is no one to take care of her at her parental place. He next submitted that the revisionist has stated in her evidence that she is residing at Panchayat Bhawan lying at her matrimonial village. She also stated that opposite party no. 2 has stated before the Court below that she intends to get DNA examination of Prince whom the revisionist claims born out of her wedlock with opposite party no. 2 and now revisionist has no objection thereon and the revisionist is ready to get the paternity of her son tested through the process of DNA testing, if so directed by competent Court. He also submits that the Court below arbitrarily and wrongly dismissed the application for maintenance filed by revisionist with finding that she is not legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2. Lastly it is submitted that the matter may be remanded to court below for deciding the question of grant of maintenance to the revisionist and marital status of the parties afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the revisionist to adduce additional evidence on the question of marital status of the parties. He further submits that even her sister-in-law (nanad) and her brother are ready to depose in support of marriage of parties. Revisionist has also filed a complaint under Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2012 except monetary relief and residence order. She has also filed an injunction suit against respondent no. 2 in the year 2022. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that all the documents on which reliance has been placed by the revisionist in support of her claim of being legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2, have been prepared after filing of maintenance petition in the year, 2019 as it is quite natural that as per her own pleadings revisionist was married to opposite party no. 2 in the year 1984 and her son Prince born out of their wedlock born in the year, 2005, i. e. after twenty one years, in as much as, it does not sound natural that during the same period from 1995 to 2019 the revisionist and Madhuri Singh, the alleged second wife were residing together in the same house at their matrimonial place. Learned counsel further clarified that this is categorical stand of opposite party no. 2 that only Madhuri Singh is legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2 and no marriage was ever solemnized between revisionist and opposite party no. 2, he has filed marriage certificate of opposite party no. 2 and Madhuri Singh in support of his claim. He further submitted that a categorical finding by the court below is that the applicant is not the legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2, which is based on cogent evidence and revisionist has miserably failed to prove this fact before the Court below that she is legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2 and for that reason court below declined to grant any maintenance to the revisionist. He lastly submitted that the contention of learned counsel for revisionist that the revisionist had been living with opposite party no. 2 for fifteen years from the year, 1984 as his wife, is not supported by evidence of the revisionist herself recorded during trial, wherein she has stated that she came back to her parental village five years ago from Samstipur and her statement was recorded on 11.10.2023 and it means that she came to the village of her alleged husband after the year, 2018. She has got her name added wrongly in Pariwar Register by opposite party beneath Madhuri Singh to take undue benefit. According to the pleadings and sworn testimony of the revisionist who is original applicant before the court below, her marriage with opposite party was solemnized on 1.5.1984 according to Hindu rites and rituals. She resided with opposite party at his place for 10-15 years and during this period, she was blessed with a girl child who died after two years of birth and subsequently a son, namely, Prince was born, for which maintenance has also been claimed. The revisionist is an illiterate woman and she is highly confused about timing and year. However, she has specified two dates in her evidence; the date of her marriage with opposite party no. 2 and 20.3.2019 when she was allegedly turned out by opposite party around

8.00 AM from his house. She has stated in her evidence that she stayed at her parental place for sometime situated at Samastipur (State of Bihar) village Matiyau. Her father Tarkeshwar Singh is alive but her mother has died twenty years ago. She lived at her parental place five years ago of her evidence, which was recorded on 11.10.2023 and at present she is residing at community centre of Panchayat Bhawan situated in the village of opposite party no. 2. Her name was entered in the family register of opposite party no. 2 after her marriage. Her son Prince is aged about twenty two years. He was around fourteen years of age at the time of filing of the application in the year, 2019 for maintenance. She has stated age of her son in her evidence at one place eighteen years, and at other place, twenty two years. She has stated that she stayed at village Guttha, her matrimonial place, for 10-15 years. She after living 10-15 years at village Guttha, went to her parental place at Samastipur (State of Bihar) and came back to village Guttha in the year 2019 and she has been residing there since May, 2019. Gram Pradhan and respectable persons of the village of opposite party no. 2 have come up in her support and they got her named entered in Family Register. Her name was also recorded in the voter list. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she had filed the maintenance case on asking of Gram Pradhan of village Guttha and some other villagers. She stayed at Panchayat Bhawan of village Guttha for three years. She is not aware of the number of children born out of wedlock of Babban Singh (opposite party) with Madhuri Singh. Babban Sing resides in Mumbai. She filed maintenance case in Samastipur (State of Bihar), which she abandoned. D. W. 1 Babban Singh (opposite party no. 2) has stated that the applicant had got her name entered in the family register and voter list in fake manner showing herself as his wife at the behest of some land mafiyas. He was never married to Saroj Singh and Prince is not his son. The occurrence, which is stated to have occurred on 20.3.2019, as stated by the revisionist, is false fake and concocted one. His date of birth is 1.1.1970. He is around 52-53 years of age. He is living in Bombay for 5-6 years. His marriage was solemnized on 30.1.1995. In fact, some land mafiyas and erstwhile Gram Pradhan, Sarita Devi and village secretary had produced the revisionist as his wife to grab his land, who has posed herself as wife of witness Babban Singh (opposite party no. 2). He works as clerk in Bombay. His marriage with Madhuri Singh was solemnized on 30.1.1995 when he was 20-21 years of age. He possesses 2-2/12 bhighas land in his name. His land is entered in the joint name of the witness and his brother. His monthly salary is Rs. 11,000/-. His elder daughter Priya Singh is around 27 years of age. His father died 6-7 years ago at the age of seventy years. He was not married in the year, 1984. In the affidavit dated 8.5.2023, his age is shown as fifty five years. It is wrong to say that Saroj Singh is his first wife. D. W. 2 Madhuri Singh has stated that her marriage with Babban Singh was solemnized in the year, 1995. She is blessed with three children and the eldest daughter is twenty eight years of age , who is married and blessed with two children also. In fact, the then Gram Pradhan Sarita, her husband, Ramakant Yadav and B. L. O. hatched a conspiracy and produced Saroj Singh as the wife of Babban Singh and got her named entered in the family register of Babban Singh to grab the valuable land of her husband. The Gram Pradhan of her village is on inimical terms with her and her husband. Her husband was twenty two years of age at the time of her marriage. He is not acquainted with Saroj Singh. He did not know about her whereabouts. The documents filed by Saroj Singh are fake and forged. The revisionist has stated that due to some constraints she could not adduce proper evidence during hearing of her maintenance case. She is ready to get D. N. A. test of her son prince done in support of her plea that she is legally wedded wife of opposite party. She is also willing to produce some witness in support of her plea who belong to family of both the sides. From the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the revisionist could not produce any other evidence, except herself, during hearing of the case by the Court below. Revisionist had filed maintenance case on 25.5.2019 which was decreed ex parte by the order of the court below on 24.1.2020 and Rs. 4000 + Rs. 2000 per month has been awarded therein as maintenance to the applicants respectively. Revisionist had also filed application under Section 128 (2) CrPC for recovery of maintenance amount and non-bailable warrant and recovery warrant was issued against opposite party no. 2 on 29.1.2021. However, subsequently the case was decided on merits by the court below and maintenance application filed by the revisionist was dismissed by the impugned judgement and order dated

18.1.2024. Considering rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and that the name of revisionist having been entered in family register of respondent no. 2 although the documents produced by revisionist in support of her claim pertain to the period of filing of application for maintenance in the year, 2019, this Court is of the considered view that the revisionist being a single woman, could not adduce sufficient evidence in support of her claim filed before the court below and now she is ready to produce some other evidence in support of her claim. Thus, it is in fitness of things to afford her an opportunity to lead evidence in support of her claim that she is legally wedded wife of respondent no. 2. Consequently, impugned order dated 18.1.2024 passed Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur in Maintenance Case No. 426/2019 (Saroj Singh and another Versus Babban Singh), under Section 125 CrPC is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the court below to hear and decide afresh after affording opportunity to lead additional evidence to the revisionist before the court below. Accordingly, revision is allowed. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 HR