IN wig HON'BLE Hf%H couaT OF CHHAmseARH AT BILASPUR (chm CKMIE N03“ 12010 $§mg§a Beac§i ' y PETITIONER : Bhima Ram Kashyap, aged abouf 45 ; J year's, Son of Vidhneshwar‘, Assisfan’r Teacher, R/o. village Soragudapam; 1’ (Non-appHcanf) k W705}W Khorkhosa’ ms” Jagda'Pum Disfrid L 1 M‘W'WBQSTM (QC—1.) “ ‘}Q\xr§\\)6“w VER$U$ RESPONDENT : Smf, Revfi; aged abouf 39 yegrs, (Applicant) wife of Bhima RawKashyap; at present R/o. Village Kumhali; Tahsil Jagdaipur‘; District gastar (6.5.) a ’ PETITION UNDER SECTLQN 482 QF CRIMINAL PROCEDUkE CQDE , _ m \ CEIVIJ'. E5 " W‘Ui? "Q A Iii‘b‘iu '\ §‘~ E’sé‘ni‘ma Ram Kashyap Versus ‘ESFGNEENT Sim. Revii it’ETiTlgizi inviici ‘ a a nn—rr “—m. =— a :1 Mam; Pai‘ahjpe, caunsei for ihe respcm‘eni. Wasseé or‘ ‘5' Secammr. 26W} Wim he consem of ihe p-ariiés‘ i‘eai‘a‘ firiaii‘v. 2. Thia' peiifEon is un eaten agaiasi crdei' dai‘d 6/03f2616‘ pa$$eu bv Ems Fie‘si ‘::z.:‘.. A: Aciumunw SéssiorxS Jucige: Jagcfaépur in crim§i1a§ i'evi3§orx NaOE’f‘Gi‘i b’v‘ Whieh me i‘evi3ior: agairist Oi‘n‘ier éated 311’01;’G§ passeiz” b‘v‘ Judi ia? “ Jagcx‘amur avvarciiiig mairxiei‘uaiice 'ha$ beén dismi$$eti uvua§i3lraia E L C§ass—i. 3. i‘xssaiiing cori'ect'r1e5$ ai‘rci vaiia‘ity of orcéei's passeci by ihe ieai'nea' magi$trate a$ ai$o pa5$eci by ieamed r nai Court, ieaméd courisei far the e :c peiitioruer ai‘gueé than me CourE‘S be§cw cieariy‘ exueedeu their juriwiciioti ir: awardirug mainteiiai‘uce ihough the resspondem faiieci ‘to pt‘oVe mat she is the iegaiiy wedceci wife of tim‘: peu icmer. Learrnea‘ caunsei f0? ihé peuum'er ai‘gue‘d ihal ,. ti’ue oww’iehiai‘y z evid‘ei‘uce whic?: was piaced or“: record uy ihe respondérri were wrorrg§y reiieri upor: b. ihe ieari1ed Caum; beiow zaring thai ihage r It is; iegaiiy wedded wife! were not iegaiiy aci‘mi$sibie. it is summhed iha‘r ihe bour'is berow ihereb‘y Au s_.~_:u” r, 1x, i ‘iii. rhuCEIJbRE : in resiirg iheér firuciirxg or: $uch iiiaci'miSSibie evidence. ii i3 further cariienaiea? uy ueameu counseE f‘r ii‘ae peiiiio'ner thai é‘v‘en fhaug§1 ’mé witne§ses of ihé r‘3ponciem ii“; “iheir crass: exammatioru 6€eariy éepoSed ih’t m “y are iuiomd amt-i 3iai§i7g ar- We; *0 iéiem ny t%‘ue reSpahaéi‘nt yei ihé Cour‘i mica/v has reifeci upon fm i’siimmiy i0 award ‘mainiemaiice. Leaméa‘ ‘-our1$ei for me pe‘iitiorxér a§sa submih ihai ever: ihaugh t nusband wa$ examineé, iheCaurE beiow campieieiy igymréd f0 a‘raw conciusion newer: or} ui‘;impeachabfé eviciétice mi the re$pamiei1i wa$ nei me iegaiiy wwded Wife. 4. On the oiiier ham, iearned coui‘xsei for the re$por1deswi suppcriea‘ the orrj‘er pasgeci by the Courts beicw. He argued mai the g5rbceed§rigs under Seciion 125 CrPC ai‘é summary m iiafufe ami‘ therefore in orrier ta came i0 irre e‘xr'ererace er’ varia“ marriage, sierrriarcr arm? deer-’ee 0f proof. i5- rrot a3 mgr: as required in a fair fieogecr civii‘ proceeo‘ing. Learneo‘ couneei for irre r‘esoonderrrrargueci mat ‘r‘ne pur‘oooe aruci obj‘oi of awarci of marrrrerrarroe Lmo'er Seoiiori 12:3 CrF‘i“; is to provide immeciiaie reiref error protect ihe wife armi rheir depeno‘eot from vagrar‘roy arid starvation Learned oouneei f‘r the reepoocierrt argued that me Courts ‘oeiow iiave reooroie ‘f marriage weed on admieeioie evio‘eruoe oru reoorri arm those eviderrce oamior we said io ue without any evidence. Furiher‘subrriiseiori of i‘eerned oou‘nsei f‘r om tiie Cour“ beio‘w have examioeci the evideooe on recorci anoi the concurrent nnoing ‘r ihe Comte ioeiow oouici noi be dieiuroeoi ijy inis Cour‘i as an appeiiate authority by re-aepreciaiing evaiiabie evidence on record ano‘ in ine absence of mere ’oeing any Case of abuse of 'r‘ne process or‘ iaw, nrieoarriage or" jusiice or potent iiiegaii’ry or pervereiry or any parenr error or‘ u- . r o r r ‘ x lexw “A.“ “A wwa 1 k M UJ A .nu: J 1L- jurisdiciicn, peiiiioiier is not enuueu Lu irrv’aké exira ominaxy' lurEdic—iim‘: of ihi$ Coui‘i u‘rucier Séciicm 4’02 m brF' a (‘i :1 i §‘ra‘v‘e considered rivai submiSsiom made by iearsied coumei for the paWes aiid a§so peru§eci ihe recoi'iiS. 6'. From ‘Lhe order paS$ed by ieai’r1eci i"v’iagi$traie am‘i by 'ihe ieameci i'evisionai Coui‘i, it is feveaiea‘ that boih t§ie Swifts beiaw ir': ordef i0 come i0 the conciussior: iii-at the re$poncieryi is iegaRév wecwea‘ wife 0f ‘he petiiim‘ner fiave i‘eiied upor: the iéstim'onv 0f Rev’tE {ARM} and Jagai Singh (AW2‘3. The C‘oui‘is heiow have aiso taken into consideratiai‘l the e‘v‘iiie'nce of ihe'paiitioner examined as a: wAW'i ai‘ud iiis witaess—Sukhwih (NAWE, Wneneiii it ‘nas beét’i uepo3eu ihat the rewomem WE$ marrieci to 3Likhi'1am u am a ‘me pmitiuner ”L wars mali‘iea‘ i0 we ‘cmari. Leamefi Magisii’aie if: its orciér, uuns uenug aforéSaisi evidérlce in£ mm I 4. i‘r’ue peiit‘ioner am respomieni i'ecordeci a firiding of f‘Tn k Lhal i gme i‘esrmiidem is thé iegaii’y’ wedded wife 0f ’me p’éiiiiorlex". The evEcierlce of thé ‘oetiiioi‘yer as NAW ‘ 4 u NAW2) has; aiso' beer; cciiséiiered in grea‘i ciétaii by ‘mé Tviagm'aie am“ merea’l‘ier mew verséor; hag beei’x di$béiieved ii‘y me Magi3 aie. ”mus, ii i3 faund ihai boih im‘e WiagiWate as weii as ‘Lhe i'evisionai Cauri have cov‘nsidefeii in detaii not o'n‘iy' ‘me evide‘rice ied iiy' im respo'rrent a aDui ai‘sa aw ins n peii’timwef and have fihaii‘y‘ recorded a fi ihg Of fas'i “'thai vaiid mai‘i‘iage ‘b’wveeh L i’he pe’iiiiahei‘ i : ahd the respohdeht has beer: provee‘. 'af‘lCi SUM ’Ii ?. . u ‘have gohe ihmugh ihe evuaehCe of ih‘ ‘v‘v‘iihesses of the respercieh‘t as weii as ihe petiiior‘xer aha ; ih me ‘ comicierea apihieh of this Lauri, a lLhere cues h’i w. ;-. appear i0 ue ahy iiiegaii’w commht‘ed by the youris heiow ih appreciahhg the éViCiE‘i'lCe. 8. The $ubmiSS§on of ieamec§ cdunSei f0? the petitioner mat even thaug%1 er fhai Sukhi‘nath married respem‘eni and tire petiiiorier was married i0 $omari, iiie finciing or" exisierice be‘rweeru the petitiorier anri respem‘iem ‘rias been recorded, ES iiaeie ie we reieci‘ d because both the Couris beiow have eoneidered the e‘ E? as G” <- aha res-per Though euCh an evie‘ence regare‘ihg marriage was oee the peritieher ahci ihe reeponciehi, after aese‘seing evidehce, ihe uouh heiow fouhe’ ihe vereiorr oi the resporue‘ehi more reiiahie fer which reaeons have aieo i there was eviiierice ieci by iiie petii r L- . _-- ueéri IeuG a The responéehr produ‘ed before the Cami beiewr varioue riecurhehie reiaiing to ihe eehiice records of the petiiioner whe is a ’miireeiiy a Government Servahi ahd working ae a .e-acher. iheee documehie, from exhibit FJI‘i i0 exhibit F17, reiaiihg i0 GFF nomihatiori, Group ihsurahce $ehe'me, ih aii ‘thoee oocuriehi‘ ihe petitioner has nen‘iinateoi the reependentee his nominee The Coune beiow in oro’er to accept those cioour have taker: into consideration that they ate true coniee of the oocumer 's retating oner and therefore are t‘etevant anot admiseibte in evirience. in summary proceedings, orawn uno‘e Section 1‘25 CrFC, the finriing ot' existence of meritai reiations‘nip ’r" hue‘oano anti wite between tne petitioner ard responcient baeeo‘ on UJ i reo’ in summary or'ceedinge uno‘e‘r Section "i25 CrPC cannot oe Said to oe as etrict as Startoard of proof required to eSta‘oiieh facturn of marriage in civii proceedinge reiating to matrimoniai dieputee. it the Courts heiow on the documentary evidence ied by the respondent, which documente are not private ae admieeibie in evio‘enee, e to eeivice record 0t the pei tn t u h documents, cannot be said to oe perveree or in \ - any manner iiie‘gai. The etanoierd ot prom ie ie or” orai evidence and n v i m n u i hLv @7 ucurneniS but true capies 6f vai‘iwfs (iocument‘ m“ bkr, «nm— u‘roup r axiissurance Scheme submitted by the petiiéaner m thé deparimeni am‘ formirug pari of i‘he seiviCé fecerci a3 Govei'r‘li‘fyeh‘i Sérv'a'n‘t §ia*' rewmeci fii‘u‘iii’ug, ii cat—moi be sa§€§ .LL mat £[intimgS are based (m m evicie‘rlce or baSeci (m iégaiiy iriacirnis é‘v’iiiéiiCé. “F, ‘10. The Court beiow have aiec disbe§ieved ihe caee ef the peii‘iioner tea”: Samar: is i163 5egaiiy W"driec§ wife by ueuoi‘dii’ug f pi a‘ ihai ih‘e reepondem i3 ihe iegaii‘v’ weddea“ wife oi” ‘ihe peii’iienei‘ a'n'ci ihe petiiiorler after about 18-19 yeare oiuma marriage, married 30raari and durirrg true aeaaeacv of rhe Caee pruauoeu (recur-[rears 0i t r‘z uni-T Fa era, in whiz; i the i orni lee i‘rae been charigeu ahu J iri piace r 0i t rxame or i’ae ree’pariden‘i, riame of Somari has been new iriirodueea. Time, err the baeiS of orai e‘v‘ioierroe ihai "ri‘ze pe’ritior’rer is marrieci io "Li‘ie resporrderlr arid i‘na‘i irr ii‘ie Servioe reoorde on ; are i year a iae‘b, r‘w resooriaen’i waS rrominareci as wife ana" eubsequeririy’ o‘uring penciency‘ or me caee, rre'v'v' cioeumerris were crea‘iea g aria = Sub'miaeoi by iiae peiiuoher ae exhibit Dii i0 exiribii iii? arro i meter-re . riie same Louie ruoi be acceleu aria“ inai i i the riocurrierri‘ riieri by ihe reeporre‘err‘t are reiiabie, Cioes ao‘l suffer from arry‘ iiie_ ‘i i‘ug ihat fw'om eviiieme, it i3 n. Ae an upsnoi of ciiecussion as a‘oove, i am not inoiined toLe awepr iii-re LL oonrenrions or‘ iearnea couneei for fne peiitioner. No ease of abuse of me process of iaw or miscarriage of jusfice or parent iii‘egaiify has heen rna"e ou'r ‘oy fhe oefitioner. This oefi‘rioh fherefore has no merit aha is accordihgiy dismissed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge e