The court emphasized that adherence to procedural rules regarding the admission of evidence is critical, and failure to mark documents as exhibits invalidates the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Misra, J.

1. Present First Appeal under Section 19 of Family Court Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1984') has been filed by plaintiff-appellant challenging Judgment dated 28.10.2015 and decree dated 30.10.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Basti dismissing O.S. No. 15 of 2010 ( Gulabpati Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rani Pandey and others ).

2. We have heard Mr. Ganesh Datt Mishra, learned counsel for plaintiff-appellant and Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing defendant-respondents 2 and 3. In spite of revision of cause list, no one has appeared on behalf of defendant-respondent 1, Smt. Pushpa Pandey.

3. Plaintiff-appellant Gulabpati (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') filed O.S. No. 15 of 2010 ( Gulabpati Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rani Pandey and others ) for a decree of declaration declaring that plaintiff alone is legally wedded wife of Murli Prasad @ Murlidhar resident of Village Dubaul, Tappa, Hardi, Pargana Basti Pashchim, Tehsil Harraiya, District Basti, who worked in Air Force, as such, plaintiff alone is entitled to receive family pension.

4. According to plaint allegations, it was alleged that plaintiff is legally wedded wife of Murlidhar Pandey @Murli Prasad Pandey son of Chandra Prakash Pandey resident of Village Dubaul, Tappa, Hardi, Pargana Basti Pashchim, Tehsil Harraiya, District Basti. Marriage of plaintiff with Murlidhar Pandey @ Murli Prasad Pandey was solemnized on 6.6.1965. From aforesaid wedlock and co-habitation of plaintiff and Murlidhar Pandey @ Murli Prasad Pandey, a daughter was born. Subsequently, Murlidhar Pandey @ Murli Prasad Pandey joined Air Force under the Ministry of Defence. Plaintiff being a simple and illiterate lady was ill-treated by Murlidhar Pandey @ Murli Prasad Pandey and his family members. After Murlidhar Pandey @ Murli Prasad Pandey joined Air Force, status of plaintiff was reduced to that of a domestic servant. Plaintiff is alleged to have complained about aforesaid conduct to Murlidhar Pandey @ Murli Prasad Pandey but no heed was paid. As plaintiff and her minor daughter were neglected by Murlidhar Pandey @ Murli Prasad Pandey, she accordingly initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was registered as Case No. 14 of 1981 and allowed, vide Judgment and order dated 9.1.1985. Murlidhar Pandey @ Murli Prasad Pandey was directed to make payment at the rate of Rs.250/-for plaintiff and Rs.150/-for minor daughter, per month. Against order dated 9.1.1985, Murlidhar Pandey @ Murli Prasad Pandey filed Criminal Revision No. 255 of 1985, which was allowed, vide order dated 11.4.1986. Against order dated 11.4.1986 passed by Revisional Court, i.e., Vth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Basti, plaintiff filed Criminal Revision No. 31 of 1981 ( Smt. Gulabpati Vs. State of U.P. ) before High Court, Allahabad, which was allowed, vide order dated 23.3.2005. Effect of same was that order dated 11.4.1986 came to be set aside resulting in restoration of earlier order dated 9.1.1985 passed by trial Court. Subsequent to Judgment of High Court, plaintiff filed an execution case and, accordingly, Murlidhar Pandey @ Murli Prasad Pandey started paying the arrears of maintenance due in instalments. On account of rise in cost of living, plaintiff filed application for enhancement of maintenance, which was allowed and accordingly, amount of maintenance was respectively enhanced to Rs.400/-and Rs.200/-per month. Daughter of plaintiff, Shashibala got married with the help of family members of plaintiff's parental side as well as relatives. Subsequently, plaintiff again filed an application for e