PURMA BAHADUR BISTA Vs. SANTA BISTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision directed against an order of maintenance passed under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1983, that being the Code still operating in Sikkim, Mr. Bishambhar Sharma, the learned Advocate for the revision petitioner, has assailed the order on two grounds only, namely, (1) the respondent No.1, in whose favour the order has been passed, is not, and has not been proved to be, t4e wife of the revision-petitioner and (2) the amount of the maintenance ordered is excessive.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge, who tried the case, (and be it noted that because of certain provisions of law operating in Sikkim, the Sessions Judge is, as held by this Court in Chandra Bahadur v. Sundermaya1 competent to try and dispose of proceedings under section 488 of the Code), has on a careful consideration of the evidence adduced before him, both oral and documentary, held that the respondent No. 1 was duly married to the revision-petitioner and the monthly salary of the latter, who is a police constable, having been found to be not less than Rs. 600/-, the Sessions Judge ordered him to pay maintenance to the respondent No 1 at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month.

(3.) I have been taken through the entire evidence on record by Mr. Sharma, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and I have no doubt that in view of the nature of the evidence on record, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge as to the factum of marriage is unassailable at least in revision. All the seven witnesses examined by the respondent No. 1, who was the applicant for maintenance, including herself and her father, except witness No.4, clearly testified as to the fact of the marriage between the parties and while one of them, being witness No. 1, was not at all cross - examined, the others remained absolutely unshaken in cross-examination, and as pointed out by the learned Judge, there is nothing on record to doubt their veracity or to question their reliability or to disbelieve them on any ground. As against this, the revision - petitioner himself was his sole witness seeking to repudiate the factum of marriage merely with his bald denial. And though the witness No.4 for the respondent No. 1, C.P. Rai, deposed that he had no knowledge about the marriage between the parties, yet he stated further that the revision-petitioner stated to him that as he and the respondent No.1 belonged to separate castes, he was ready to pay some money to the petitioner as compensation. There is also a document on record written in Nepali, which has been signed by witnesses Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 all of whom have proved their respective signatures in the document and have referred to the document in their depositions as a documentregarding the marriageT prepared in the presence of the Panchayats. In the body of the document it appears to have been recorded that the revision-petitioner and the respondent No. 1 have married each other according to their own choice and out of their own will and accord and that the document is in respect of the revision petitioner taking or making the respondent No. 1 as his wife- Patni Tulyeko Bishayama. But though the witnesses noted above have proved their respective signatures on the document, the document as a whole has not been proved and there appears to be no evidence as to who wrote the body and the learned Judge also has not marked the document as a whole as a proved Exhibit. No one has also proved the alleged signature of the revision-petitioner on this document and the latter also has not been confronted with this document or cross-examined with reference to its contents. The contents of the document, therefore, can not be taken into consideration and the learned Judge also has not referred to or relied on its contents but has rested his finding on the other evidence on record referred to hereinabove and, as already stated, on the state of evidence on record the finding arrived at by the learned Judge as to the factum of marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent No.1 cannot call for any interference in revision.