IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.24 of 2009 MANBRITA DEVI …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BIJAY PASWAN ..OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kr. Pandey For o.p.no.2 :Mr.Birju Prasad ----------- 03. 08.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for o.p.no.2. Petitioner was the applicant in the court below seeking maintenance on the ground that she is legally-wedded wife of Bijay Paswan (o.p.no.2 herein). Learned trial court on appraisal of the evidence brought on record by the parties found as under: “Young hearts have their own ways. They behave as they like. The court can not help them, but under section 125 Cr.P.C. This Court has to examine whether the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the o.p. or not. In this case the applicant has miserably failed to prove her marriage with the o.p. whereas the o.p. has succeeded to prove that he has his own wife and has eight issues. I have already commented that the applicant has almost admitted that the o.p. has his own wife. I have already commented that the applicant has admitted that she was earlier married with Anant Mistry and has her own two issues. From the evidence of A.W.2 para 15 it is further clear that the applicant is residing at village Kochus in a rented house paying rent of Rs.500 per month. This goes to show that the applicant has got her own sources to pay the rent. The applicant has concealed the material facts from the court and has not come to the court with clean hands. The applicant has failed to prove her legal marriage with the o.p. The o.p. is already married having eight issues. The wife of the o.p. entered into the witness box to support the o.p. I have nothing to disbelieve the sworn testimony of 2 the o.p.w.2. In fact the cross examination of o.p.w.2 by the applicant goes to show that the applicant was knowing fully well that the o.p. is married with Manbrita Devi and has got his own family sons and daughters.” Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any perversity in the aforesaid findings. This Court finds no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )