An order granting interim alimony in a matrimonial suit is not conclusive evidence of the validity of a marriage, but it can be considered as evidence of recognition of the marital relationship.

Tarun Kumar Gupta, J.

1. THIS is judgment of reversal.

2. RESPONDENT No. 1 Mira Das filed a suit for declaration and injunction against appellant as well as respondent No.2 Railways Authority.

Plaintiffs case, in short, was that plaintiff was married with Bholanath Das (since deceased) on 24th January, 1975 according to Hindu rites and customs. Marriage was consummated and a son named Tapan Das was born. Bholanath Das was a railway employee. Bholanath Das was addicted to drinking and had illicit relation with women. Bholanath drove out plaintiff along with her son and started to reside with defendant No. 1 Pratima Das alias Kachu Das. The plaintiff filed a matrimonial suit against Bholanath Das under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act and obtained a contested order of interim alimony. Bholanath Das died on 8th of November, 1994. Though defendant No. 1 Pratima Das was not legally married wife of Bholanath Das but defendant No.2 Railway Authority was trying to settle the family pension in favour of defendant No.1. Accordingly, plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs.

3. PRESENT appellant as defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing written statement. She alleged that plaintiff was not married with Bholanath and never lived as husband and wife and that plaintiff was married to one Munu Das of Kumar Bazar, Ranigunj who has since died. Bholanath Das initially married one Sarala Das who died on 10th of October, 1972 leaving one daughter Arati and one son Manik. After death of Sarala, Bholanath Das married defendant No. 1 Pratima Das. Bholanath died on 8th of November, 1994 leaving Pratima as wife, one daughter Doli and one son Bidhan. Bholanath Das nominated Pratima as wife in his service book as well as in Provident Fund, gratuity and family pension. After death of Bholanath Pratima rightfully claimed family pension from defendant No.2 Railway Authority and is drawing the same from January, 1995. Bholanath Das did not contest the matrimonial suit filed by the plaintiff in right earnest. Plaintiff, Bholanath and defendant No. 1 all belonged to Baishnab community and the plaintiff taking advantage of his familiarity with Bholanath has filed this false case.

4. DEFENDANT No.2 Eastern Railway filed a written statement stating that widow pension was settled in favour of Pratima Das as per declaration of Bholanath Das given in his office in writing and that the Railway Authority was not aware of the alleged matrimonial suit or of relation between Bholanath and the plaintiff.

All concerned adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. After contested hearing learned Trial Court dismissed the suit.

5. ON the basis of evidence adduced by both sides both oral and documentary, learned Trial Court ignored the order of allowing interim maintenance in favour of wife Mira Das to be paid by Bholanath Das in Mat. Suit No.22/18 of 1988 (Ext.1) as Bholanath Das declared defendant No.1 Pratima Das and her children as his wife and family members in office record which were marked exhibits (A, D and L). Learned Trial Court also observed that the suit was filed on 17th February, 1995 for declaring that defendant No. 1 was not entitled to get any family pension from defendant No.2 Railway Authority as alleged wife of Bholanath and also for injunction though family pension in favour of defendant No. 1 was already granted by defendant No.2 Railway Authority with effect from January, 1995. Accordingly, learned Trial Court observed that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had no cause of action.

6. LEARNED Lower Appellate Court, however, reversed said judgment and decree of learned Trial Court by observing that defendant No. 1 failed to state either in her pleadings or in evidence her exact date of marriage and also there were contradicting versions about said marriage in between Bholanath and defendant No.1, though plaintiff gave specific date of marriage and also