IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 488 of 2001
Bela Mahto ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dulali Devi ...... Opposite Parties
CORAM: THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
------
For the Petitioner : Mr.Mahesh Twiari
For the State : Mr.Ravi Prakash
....
7 / 25.3.2011
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court
towards paragraph-7 of the order and has said that the petitioner has denied his
relationship with Dulali Devi, who has alleged to be his second wife. If Rohini Devi ,
first wife, was already existing, then entitlement of the second wife for any
maintenance, according to the learned counsel, does not arise.
On reading of paragraph-7 critically, it would be found that it has
been denied that the first wife is living. It was only after the death of the first wife
that the petitioner has solemnized marriage with opposite party no.2.
If at all meaning is to be given about the reference of Rohini Devi
then it could be said that after the death of the first wife-Rohini Devi, the marriage of
the petitioner was solemnized with the opposite party no.2-Dulali Devi. In that view of
the matter, the entitlement of the opposite party-wife can not be denied.
In this petition, which is a revision petition, appreciation of
evidence is not called for . The order of the trial court is extensive and the
entitlement of the opposite party-wife has been denied so much so that the matter
was contested on merits and the petitioner has said that she has left the house of the
petitioner and eloped with somebody else. All these defence of the petitioner fall flat.
` In that view of the matter , no illegality is found in the order. The
order passed by the trial court is perfectly justified . The revision petition is,
accordingly, dismissed.
( Bhagwati Prasad, C.J.)
G.Jha/