1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgement rendered by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Shrirampur, whereby Special Civil Suit No. 22/2005 came to be dismissed.

2. Appellant is the original plaintiff. She filed suit for separate maintenance allowance and creation of charge of her maintenance allowance on the properties of respondent No.1/defendant No. 1. The respondents No. 2 and 3 are the original defendants No. 2 and 3. They have set up claim of adoption of respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 1.

3. The appellant claims to be legally wedded wife of the respondent No.1. Her case before the Trial Court was that her marriage with the respondent No. 1 was performed prior to about 48 years in accordance with the rites and tenets of Hindu religion. She resided with him in the matrimonial house for about a couple of years after the marriage. He drove her away after consortium of about two (2) years. Though she and members of her natural family had made the efforts for restitution of conjugal rights, yet, he did not allow her to resume the matrimonial relationship. He deserted her without any sufficient reason. He is a womanizer and has squandered lacs of rupees in order to fulfil his sensual lust. He is a well-off person having agricultural properties, house property and movables, as described in the plaint.

4. The appellant further asserted that the respondents No. 2 and 3 have no concern with the respondent No. 1. However, in order to grab the properties of respondent No.1, the respondent No. 2 is now representing himself as an adopted son of the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 3 is representing herself as the daughter-in-law of the latter. The appellant further alleges that though her brothers maintained her properly, yet, due to oldage, now, they are reluctant to maintain her. She requires medical treatment due to oldage. She needs separate maintenance allowance of Rs. 25,000/- per month. The respondent No. 1 avoided to pay such maintenance allowance to her inspite of demands. He is making haste to dispose of the suit properties. The other two (2) respondents are bent upon illegally taking over the properties of the respondent No.1 under false pretext that they are his adopted son and the daughter-in-law. Consequently, she filed suit for separate maintenance allowance and creation of charge of the maintenance allowance on his immovable property.

5. By filing written statement (Exh-22), the respondent No. 1 resisted the suit. He denied relationship with the appellant. He denied that she is his legally wedded wife and that the marriage was performed prior to about 48 years of the suit. He contended that the appellant and himself are members of ‘Taru’ community and there was previous relationship between her father and his paternal uncle. He asserted that his father died before his birth and thereafter, his mother brought up him. He asserted that he and his mother were under protective care of his uncle during his minority. He owns seven (7) acres area of ancestral land. According to him, somewhere in 1953-54, his paternal uncle, by name Vithal and some other relatives had given him offer for settlement of his marriage with the appellant. The appellant was then minor and was partly lunatic. He too was minor at the relevant time. He asserted that his mother refused to accept the proposal of his marriage with the appellant. He further asserted that inspite of the insistence of the paternal relatives of the appellant, as mother did not budge and, therefore, the marriage could not be performed. With the result, the relations between both the families were strained. Her relatives thereafter had put spokes in settlement of his marriage with other brides and, therefore, he remained unmarried. He thus denied status of the appellant of his married wife. He contended that her relatives had obtained her thumb impression on the false plaint.

6. The respondents No. 2 and 3 submitted that the respondent No. 1 has adopted the re