IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 55 of 2003 Decided on : 14th December, 2009 Rajo Devi …Petitioner. Versus Gian Chand ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 3.1.2003 of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby accepting the revision, filed by respondent Gian Chand, order dated 16.4.2001 of learned Judicial Magistrate, passed on a petition, under Section 125 Cr. P.C, moved by the present revision petitioner, has been set aside and the said petition, under Section 125 Cr. P.C., dismissed. 2. Revision petitioner, claiming herself to be the wife of respondent Gian Chand, filed a petition, under Section 125 Cr. P.C., seeking monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.1000/- per month. Respondent denied that the revision petitioner was his wife. Both the parties adduced evidence. Learned Judicial Magistrate believed revision petitioner’s Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… version and held that her marriage with respondent Gian Chand had taken place in November, 1997, and that about seven months after the marriage she was turned out of the matrimonial home and no maintenance had been provided to her ever since. Consequently, petition was allowed and maintenance allowance @ Rs.500/- per month was granted in favour of the revision petitioner and against respondent Gian Chand. 3. Respondent Gian Chand filed a revision petition in the Court of learned Sessions Judge. That petition has been accepted and the order of Judicial Magistrate, dated 16.4.2001, granting maintenance in favour of the revision petitioner has been set aside. Now the revision petitioner has approached this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. 5. Evidence led by the revision petitioner in support of her claim that she was married to respondent Gian Chand consists of her own testimony as PW-1 and the testimony of her father Rirku Ram, examined as PW-5, besides a certificate Ext. PW2/A, issued by the Panchayat of the area in which the house of petitioner’s father falls, to the effect that revision petitioner is married to the respondent. 6. Respondent examined himself as also the priest of the temple in which the marriage had allegedly been solemnized and also a resident of his village, who stated that …3… revision petitioner never lived with the respondent as his wife or otherwise and that the respondent was married to some other lady, who died in January, 1997 and from that lady he had begotten four children. 7. According to the revision petitioner and her father, marriage had been solemnized at the temple of Badheri Mata in the area of Jogindernagar and that PW-4 Parveen Sharma was their Prohit, who recited the Mantras. PW-4 Parveen Sharma, however, did not support the revision petitioner. He stated that he never went with the revision petitioner and her father to Badheri Mata Temple to get petitioner’s marriage performed with the respondent. 8. Also, there are material contradictions in the testimony of the revision petitioner and her father, which suggest that petitioner’s marriage with the respondent did not take place. According to the revision petitioner, Pujari of the temple was also present, when the marriage had taken place. Father of the revision petitioner, however, stated that the temple was closed, when they went there and it was opened by the respondent, meaning thereby that Pujari (Priest) of the temple was not there. 9. Respondent examined the priest of the temple, namely Halku Ram as RW-2, who stated that no marriage of the revision petitioner with the respondent had taken place in the temple and that as a matter of fact a marriage register is maintained at the temple in which all the marriages performed in the temple are entered. Revision petitioner and …4… her father offered no explanation for not getting the marriage entered in the said register. 10. Also, revision petitioner and her father offered no explanation for not getting the marriage entered in the record of the Panchayat in which the respondent has his residence. Instead of getting the marriage entered in the record of respondent’s Panchayat, revision petitioner and her father got the marriage entered in the record of revision petitioner’s father’s Panchayat. This entry was got made on 10th March, 1998, i.e. about four months after the alleged marriage. Entry Regarding marriage is required to be got made in the Panchayat record within 20 days of marriage, per testimony of RW-4 Parmeshwari Dass, Panchayat Secretary, and in case entry is not got made within 20 days, the same is required to be reported to the higher authorities. The witness further stated that as per procedure, the entry is required to be got made in the record of the Panchayat of the husband. 11. No doubt, revision petitioner stated that after getting the marriage entered in the record of her father’s Panchayat, she obtained a certificate and gave that certificate to the respondent so that he got the entry made, in the record of his own Panchayat, but the explanation cannot be taken to be a gospel truth, in view of the fact that the alleged marriage was not got entered either in the temple register or in the record of the Panchayat of the respondent, but a novel method was adopted to get it …5… entered in the record of the Panchayat of revision petitioner’s father. 12. In view of the above stated position, I do not think the learned Sessions Judge has committed any error by holding that the revision petitioner is not proved to be the wife of the respondent and, hence, not entitled to maintenance allowance, under Section 125 Cr. P.C. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. December 14, 2009(ss) (Surjit Singh), J