IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 92 of 2008 Decided on: 10.3.2009. _________________________________________________ Mohan Lal …….. Petitioner. Versus Smt. Reena. …….. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the petitioner :Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent :Mr. Virender Kumar Verma. Surinder Singh, J (oral). The petitioner assailed the order of maintenance, passed by the learned trial court in case No.301-IV of 2004, passed on the application of the respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, @ of Rs.1,000/- per month, which was upheld in the revision petition by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner-husband denied the respondent to be his wife. He specifically alleged that she was the wife of some other person and was having a female child, namely _____________________________________________________ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?.Yes. - 2 - Anju Negi. He did not say whether he was married or unmarried. On the perusal of the evidence led by the parties it emerges that the respondent was earlier married to one Amar Singh who had died leaving behind a female daughter Anju born during such marriage. Thereafter, the respondent-wife is alleged to have married the petitioner herein, on 13.4.2001. This marriage was got entered into the Panchayat by the petitioner himself. This fact stands proved and admitted by him when examined himself as RW1. The entry of marriage is signed by both the parties. Feeling trapped in his own net, the petitioner took another stand that although he was married to Reena, regarding which the entry Ex.PW1/A was made in the Panchayat but the respondent was not that lady but in fact, she is named Jogindera Devi and she wrongly pretending herself as Reena. Radha Devi (RW2) the mother of the petitioner stated that Mohan Lal petitioner had married one Reena Devi and not the petitioner. RW3 Gobind Ram was not a summoned witness, but stated that respondent was married to Amar Singh (now dead). He also produced Ext.DX photocopy of election card issued in the year 1997 which according to him contained the - 3 - photo of the respondent wherein her name is shown as Jogindera Devi wife of Amar Singh. During the proceedings in the revision petition, the petitioner-husband moved an application under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure for additional evidence to examine the record of the number of mobile telephone alleged to have been issued in the name of respondent-wife. His request was allowed. He examined AW1 Shashi Kant Verma, an employee of Airtel. He stated that the application Ex.AW1/A for the connection was moved by one Jogindera Devi to whom he did not know. He testified on oath in his cross- examination that the photographs on the said application form and identity card attached with the application did not tally with each other and the application form was also not filled in by her in his presence. Apparently the photographs are of two different women. It stands not proved which photograph is that of the respondent. Further the petitioner also produced the birth certificate Ex.DY of Anju whose parentage is daughter of Amar Singh and Jogindera whereas Ex.DX and AW1/B show one Jogindera Devi wife of Jagar Nath. The whole - 4 - evidence produced by the petitioner-husband is quite irreconcilable and contradictory. The learned revisional court also took note of this evidence and after examining it, held that the petitioner failed to establish that the name of Reena Devi respondent was in fact Jogindera Devi, who was married to one Jagar Nath and rightly held that no reliance could be put on such a dilatory evidence. However, on re-examining the evidence on record, I do not find that the findings of the learned trial court and also that of the revisional court are perverse. It appears from the evidence led by the petitioner that in order to wriggle out from the wrath of maintenance the petitioner has tried to create an evidence to show that the respondent was not his wife, whereas Ex.PW1/A the registration of marriage of the parties in the Panchayat admitted by the petitioner is a relevant evidence and he failed to prove that petitioner was not Reena Devi with whom he had married. Even he failed to produce his so- called wife Reena in the court to lodge the claim of the respondent. - 5 - Thus, the respondent has proved himself to be quite dishonest and the very denial of his marriage with respondent in the above facts and circumstances make him liable for maintenance as the neglect and refusal is writ large. Therefore, he does not have a case worth interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accordingly the petition is dismissed. March 10, 2009. (Surinder Singh), (Pds) Judge.