IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Appeal No.35-DB of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 11, 2010 Smt. Anita and others .....APPELLANTS Versus Dharambir Singh ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH --- Present: Mr. Yashwinder Paul Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Appellants Smt. Anita and her three minor children aged about 12 years, 10 years and 8 years, respectively, have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 5.8.2009 passed by the District Judge, Bhiwani, being the Family Court, whereby the application of the appellants under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance filed against the respondent Dharambir Singh, has been dismissed. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the impugned judgment. The Family Court, Bhiwani has dismissed the application of the appellants while recording a finding of fact that appellant Smt. Anita has not been proved to be the legally wedded wife of Dharambir Singh and the other appellants to be born from the loins of the respondent. The case of appellant Smt. Anita before the Family Court was that earlier Dharambir Singh was married to her sister Sunita and thereafter he performed marriage with her in the year 1990 and from their cohabitation, three children have Crl.Appeal No.35-DB of 2010 -2- born from them. While recording the said finding against the appellants, it has been noticed that during her examination in the Court, appellant No.1 had admitted that the marriage of Sunita and Dharambir Singh did not dissolve by a decree of divorce. As per her statement, the marriage of Dharambir Singh with Sunita still subsists as no divorce has taken place between them. It has also been noticed that there is no reliable document on the file which establishes that appellant Smt. Anita lived with Dharambir Singh as husband and wife and from them three children were born. No ration card or voters list was produced by her to show herself to be the wife of Dharambir Singh. Rather, one voters list placed on the record shows Sunita as wife of Dharambir Singh. On January 14, 2010, the case was adjourned and the counsel for the appellants was provided an opportunity to place on record the birth certificates of the children (appellants No.2 to 4) in order to show their parentage. But, today counsel has shown his inability to produce such document. In absence of any cogent and reliable material, in our opinion, the Family Court has rightly recorded the aforesaid finding of fact, which, in our opinion, is neither perverse nor illegal. Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere in the said finding of fact. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 11, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) vkg JUDGE