ARJUN Vs. TIHARI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the husband against the judgment dated 15. 3. 1995 of First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Raigarh passed in Civil Suit No. 20a of 1991 rejecting the petition filed by the appellant/husband under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of nullity of his marriage with the respondent.

(2.) IN support of his petition seeking a decree of nullity of marriage on the ground that his second marriage with the respondent was null and void, the petitioner/appellant examined himself in the Court below as PW 1. In his testimony, he states that about 30 years back, he was legally married to one Savitribai and from that marriage a son named Baranlal was born. According to him, he had developed illicit relations with the respondent about 15 or 16 years prior to the filing of the petition and the respondent lived with him only for six months. She thereafter deserted him and went back to live with her parents. According to him, she thereafter never returned to his house and he is still living with his first wife Savitribai. He admits that the petition for seeking decree of nullity of marriage was filed consequent upon the Judicial Magistrate passing an order of maintenance against him under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code on 24. 10. 1989 in favour of the wife and Santoshibai, a daughter alleged to have been born to the petitioner through the respondent. A criminal revision preferred against the order of the Judicial Magistrate was rejected by the Court of Sessions on 2. 4. 1990. The present petition seeking decree of nullity of marriage was filed on 17. 9. 1990. The petitioner in his cross-examination admitted that his first wife Savitribai had left the village where they jointly lived about 10-12 years back. He, however, denied that Savitribai (his former wife) had married and is now living in village Dilli. The petitioner also denied that the girl Santoshi was born from the wedlock between him and the respondent.

(3.) THE petitioner in support of his case also examined one witness, PW 2 Sahdeo, who stated that Savitribai was married wife of the petitioner but admitted that Savitribai had gone to village Dilli for working there as labourer. He, however, states that Savitribai is occasionally on visiting terms with the petitioner.