- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners. The opposite party has not appeared in this case, even though the notice was validly served upon him.
(2.) THE petitioners have filed this application, challenging order dated 19.5.2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 95A of 2007 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was rejected by the Court below, in view of the fact that the petitioner No.1 had not been able to prove the marriage between the parties. From the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner No.1, Sampa Sardar had filed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in the Court below, claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of the opposite party, stating that her former husband had become traceless for seven years and thereafter, they had married in a temple, out of which, a daughter was born, who is the petitioner No.2. The opposite party had appeared in the Court below and had denied the marriage between the parties. It appears from the impugned order that the petitioner No.1 examined five witnesses to prove her case in the Court below. Though some of the witnesses have stated that the marriage between the parties had taken place in their presence, but one witness is the mother of the petitioner and the other such witness is P.W.2, Dulal Sardar, who when cross- examined, showed his ignorance about the first husband of the petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.1 had examined herself as P.W.5 in the Court below and she had also stated about the marriage between her and the opposite party, but in her cross examination, she had admitted that she had given birth of her daughter from her previous husband. She had also stated that her previous husband Sambhu Sardar had died and after three years of his death, she had married the opposite party. In her cross examination, she has also admitted that she had filed a complaint case against the opposite party, in which, she had not mentioned that her previous husband was alive. The complaint petition was proved as Exhibit 'B' and her statement recorded on Solemn Affirmation was also proved, which showed that her previous husband was alive.
(3.) THE Court below, on the basis of the above evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner No.1 had not been able to prove her marriage with the opposite party and has, accordingly, dismissed the application. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that there were material contradictions in the evidence adduced by the petitioner No. 1, about the marriage between the parties and the birth of the daughter from this wedlock, and the Court below has rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner No.1 had not been able to prove her marriage with the opposite party.;