Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the learned trial Court appreciated the material available on the record in a just manner and directed the respondent no.2 to pay her maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,500/- per month as the respondent no.2 failed to maintain her without any justifiable cause. He submitted that the petitioner came with a specific plea in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that she was earlier S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1191/2014 Smt. Vidhya Devi @ Kamla Devi. vs. State & Anr. married to Ram Lal Nayak, with whom she took a customary divorce. He submits that the petitioner, while giving evidence, was cross examined on this issue and she specifically stated that her earlier marriage with Ram Lal was terminated by a customary divorce. The respondent did not dispute that customary divorce is permissible in the community to which the parties belong. He further submitted that the petitioner also proved the medical bill Ex.2A submitted by the respondent no.2 in his department wherein he has shown the petitioner to be his wife. The ration card of the respondent no.2, the petitioner's own election identity card issued in the year 2001, the voters list etc. were all proved in order to establish and prove that the respondent no.2 had married the petitioner. He further submitted that the respondent no.2 stated a blatant lie when he was examined as NAW1 before the trial Court. He denied having any knowledge of the petitioner and claimed that the ration card, voter list etc. were forged. He further submitted that the respondent no.2 was confronted with the medical claim bill Ex.P/1 and he denied his own signatures on the document. The said document was procured from the respondent no.2's department and there was no occasion for the petitioner to have forged the same. If at all the respondent no.2's signatures on the document were S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1191/2014 Smt. Vidhya Devi @ Kamla Devi. vs. State & Anr. forged, he could have filed an FIR in relation thereto. The said medical bill was generated at the time the respondent no.2 was working in the forest department and thus, there was no occasion for the petitioner to forge the document. She could not be expected to foresee that a matrimonial dispute would arise in future and thus, would create documentary proof in advance. He thus urged that the order of the revisional Court holding that the petitioner had not divorced her earlier husband Ram Lal and thus, was not legally wedded wife of the respondent no.2, is totally unjust and contrary to the material available on the record and hence, the same deserves to be quashed.