The central legal point established in the judgment is the validity of marriage and the reliance on evidence to determine the legality of the marriage and maintenance order.

Nagendra Rai and P.N.Yadav JJ.

1. The appellant has filed this appeal under section 19 of the Family Court Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment dated 30.8.1997 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, dismissing the suit filed by the appellant for declaration that respondent-Sudha Devi is not his legally wedded wife and the order passed in Maintenance Case No. 6/1986 under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) is illegal and void; and the respondent be restrained from taking any step for implementation of the aforesaid order of maintenance.

2. The materials on the record show that the appellant and the respondent both are handicapped persons and the appellant is employed in the Department of Education, Government of Bihar. According to the appellant, the respondent is not his legally wedded wife. The father of the respondent approached him for marriage, but he refused and, thereafter, a false claim of maintenance was made under section 125 of the Code, which was wrongly allowed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barh, and a direction was issued for payment of Rs. 500/- per month by way of maintenance to the respondent.

3. The case of the respondent, on the other hand, is that her marriage was solemnised with the appellant on 4.2.1982 at village Salimpur, P.S. Bakhtiarpur, District Patna, according to the Hindu rites and customs. She was taken to her husbands house at village Wadpur, P.S. Hatidah, District Patna and she lived there for about three and half years. Thereafter, she was being treated with cruelty and was also tortured for not fulfilling the demand of dowry, as a result of which she fell ill. On the pretext of providing her proper treatment, she was told by the appellant and his family members that she was being taken to Patna, but he brought her to Salimpur Halt Station and left her at her fathers house and since then she has been living with her father. Efforts were made by the relations to settle the matter but when no tangible result could come out, then she had no option but to file a petition under section 125 of the Code for her maintenance, which was considered and allowed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barh.

4. The appellant examined himself as a witness, whereas, the respondent examined six witnesses, including herself as 0.P.W.1, her father Ram Charitar Sharma as O.P.W.2, the Purohit and Hajam, who participated in the marriage as O.P.W.3 Anand Sharma and O.P.W.4 Ram Lakhan Thakur, respectively, a co-villager Birendra Sharma as O.P.W.5 and one Maha Devi as 0.P.W.6, who is said to have supplied elephant pitcher made of mud for the marriage ceremony of the respondent.

5. The trial court, after having considered the matter, found that there was valid marriage between the parties and no case for grant of relief as sought for by the appellant was made out and, accordingly, dismissed the suit.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no cogent and reliable evidence to show the marriage between the parties and the trial court has committed an error both on fact as well as in law in coming to the conclusion that the respondent-Sudha Devi is the legally wedded wife of the appellant.

7. As stated above, the appellant has examined himself as a witness and has denied the factum of marriage. His version has not been supported by any co-villager or even by his any relation, whereas, the respondent has examined six witnesses. Though the court below has disbelieved the evidence of O.P.Ws. 3, 4 and 6, but has relied upon the evidence of O.P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 as well as on the entry in the voter-list and has come to the conclusion that she is the legally wedded wife of the appellant.

8. We have perused the evidence on the record and found that the respondent in her evidence has given description and details of the marriage, which have been supported by her father and co-villager (O.P.Ws. 2 and 5). Nothing