SANTOSH KUMARI Vs. DALIP CHAND
LAWS(HPH)-1997-7-26
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on July 10,1997

SANTOSH KUMARI Appellant
VERSUS
DALIP CHAND Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SUBHASH POPATLAL SHAH V. LATA SUBHASH SHAH [REFERRED TO]
SMT GITIKA BAGCHI V. SUBHABROTA BAGCHI [REFERRED TO]
BHAURAO SHANKAR LOKHANDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
KAIIWAL RAM VS. HIMACHAL PRADESH ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
S P S BALASUBRAMANYAM VS. SURUTTAYAN ALIAS ANDALI PADAYACHI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

Krishan Pal Singh VS. Babli @ Kamlesh [LAWS(HPH)-2009-3-34] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,J. - (1.)The present second appeal has been preferred by the appellant -defendant against the judgment and decree dated 24 -10 -1989 passed by the District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lauhal & Spiti Camp at Kullu in Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1985/130 of 1988 dismissing the appeal of the appellant -defendant and thereby confirming the judgment and decree recorded by the Senior Sub -Judge, Kullu in Civil Suit No. 118 of 1983 on 29 -4 - 1985. The parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants hereinafter in the judgment for the purpose of convenience
(2.)The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No. 118 of 1983 in the Court of Senior Sub -Judge, Kullu seeking declaration to the effect that defendant Smt. Santosh Kumari is not his wife and Master Aaroni defedant is not his son. At the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff was employed as teacher in Govt. Middle School, Lossar in Spiti. He originally belongs to Kothidol, Post Office Gopalpur, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi. Defendants are residents of Phati and Kothi Jagatsukh, Tehsil and District Kullu. H.P It was asserted in the plaint that the defendants initiated proceedings against the plaintiff under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for themselves and that in those proceedings maintenance allowance was allowed to second defendant Master Aaroni but it was dis -allowed to first defendant Smt. Santosh Kumari. The plaintiff averred that defendant Smt. Santosh Kumari is claiming herself to be his wife and defendant Aaroni as his son in the general public. It was then asserted that the defendants were requested not to claim the said status but they is not accede to the request, therefore, the suit was filed.
(3.)The suit was resisted and contested by the defendants, inter alia, raising various preliminary objections vis -a -vis its maintainability, jurisdiction, valuation for the purposes of Court fee and competency of the suit against the minor defendant. On merits, it was contended that defendant Smt. Santosh Kumari had contracted marriage in the form of Jhanjrara on 24 -4 -1974 and thereafter she continued to live a normal life and cohabited with the plaintiff by staying at the places where he was posted till the year 1977. Ultimately, she became pregnant from the plaintiff in the year 1977 when they were living at Kaza and lateron she was shifted to her parental house and consequently gave birth to defendant Master Aaroni at that place, it was further pleaded that on the birth of the son, a feast was also arranged at her parental house where the plaintiff was also present. Defendant Smt. Santosh Kumari further contended that in the maintenance proceedings initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C, she and her son were awarded maintenance by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu and that order was under challenge before the higher Court. On the controversial pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.