Case No: Civil Revision No. 1484 of 2012
Judge: Sheikh Abdul Awal,
Court: High Court Division,,
Advocate: Mr. Goutom Kumar Roy,,
Citation: 4 LNJ (2015) 450
Case Year: 2015
Appellant: Bhabatosh Kumar Basu Roy
Respondent: Bhajana Rani Roy
Subject: Hindu Law,
Delivery Date: 2014-09-17
(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
Sheikh Abdul Awal, J
|Bhabatosh Kumar Basu Roy
. . . Petitioner
Bhajana Rani Roy
. . .Opposite party
There was a marriage ceremony between the parties in the temple of the deity Kali in presence of many persons according to Hindu Shastra and thus, in the facts and circumstance of the case the plaintiff-opposite party is entitled to get maintenance from 1.7.2005 to till her death in accordance with Hindu Shastra. . . . (12)
Mr. Goutom Kumar Roy, Advocate
...For the petitioner
No one appears
.... For the opposite party
Civil Revision No. 1484 of 2012
This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.5.2010 (decree signed on 13.8.2008) passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 3rd Court, Faridpur in Family Appeal No. 20 of 2008 dismissing the appeal and affirming those dated 01.7.2008 (decree signed on 13.8.2008) passed by the learned Assistant Judge and ex-officio Family Judge, Boalmari, Faridpur in Family Suit No. 128 of 2005 decreeing the suit should not be set-aside and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
The brief fact relevant for disposal of this Rule is that the opposite party as plaintiff on 4.10.2005 instituted the aforesaid Family Suit No.49 of 2005 before the Family Court, Boalmari, Faridpur claiming an amount of Taka 3000+2000+1500=6,500/= per month on account of maintenance for her and her mother and servant. The said suit was subsequently renumbered as Family Suit No.128 of 2005. The plaintiff’s case, in short, is that the defendant Bhabotosh Kumar Roy after the death of his first wife married the plaintiff according to Hindu Law on 6.8.2000 and on that day the defendant took the plaintiff to his house and started living there as husband and wife. Although, their conjugal life was not happy one as the defendant used to maltreat with her claiming dowry and ultimately plaintiff filed Nari-O-Shishu Case against the defendant, who got an order of acquittal in the said criminal case and after being acquitted the plaintiff on 13.7.2005 made a declaration by executing an affidavit being No. 186 cancelling such marriage and thereafter, finally on 30.09.2005 the defendant refused to give any maintenance to the plaintiff and hence, the suit.
That the defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement denying all the material allegation of the plaint and contended inter alia that there was no presentation of gold or cloth on 17.02.2000 at the house of the plaintiff as precondition of marriage nor there was marriage solemnization on 6.8.2000 according to Hindu rites at Kathin Kalibari Temple and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed with cost as being false, and fabricated one.
The learned Assistant Judge on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues for determination:-
- Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form or not ?
- Whether marriage was solemnised between the plaintiff and the defendant according to Hindu religious rites or not ?
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get relief, as prayed for ?
The learned Judge of the Family Court upon hearing both the parties decreed the suit on 01.7.2008, holding that the marriage was solemnized between them on 6.8.2000 according to Hindu Law and that plaintiff opposite party is legally entitled to get maintenance Tk. 2500/- per month during the period from October, 2005 to July, 2008 at a time along with a direction upon the defendant to pay Tk. 2500/- per month to the plaintiff for maintenance till her death within 1st 10 days in each month . Against the said judgment and decree passed in Family suit No. 128 of 2005 the defendant petitioner preferred Family Appeal No. 20 of 2008 before the learned District Judge, Faridpur which was heard by the learned Joint District Judge, 3rd Court, Faridpur, who by the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.5.2010 ( decree signed on 26.5.2010) dismissed the appeal on contest with a direction upon the defendant-petitioner to pay Tk. 2500/- per month during the period from 1.7.2005 to 1.7.2008 amounting to Tk. 1,50,000/- at a time and also to pay Tk. 2500/- per month for maintenance to the plaintiff till her death.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and decree dated 23.5.2010 (decree signed on 26.5.2010), the petitioner moved this Court and obtained the present Rule.
Mr. Goutom Kumar Roy, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the learned Joint District Judge erred in law in passing the impugned judgment arbitrarily and the same has occasioned failure of justice. The learned Advocate further submits that both the courts below erred in law in decreeing the suit without properly considering the facts of the case and the case made out by the petitioner that no marriage took place between the parties according to Hindu Law and the same has occasioned failure of justice.
I have considered the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and perused the record. The only material question for consideration in this case is, whether the Court of appeal below has committed any illegality in affirming the judgment of the trial court on the finding that the marriage between the parties taken place according to Hindu Law.
For an answer to the question raised in this Rule it is necessary to examine the evidence on record. It appears that plaintiff herself was examined as PW-1, who in her evidence clearly stated that defendant Bhabotosh Kumar Roy after the death of his first wife married the plaintiff according to Hindu Law on 6.8.2000 and on that date the defendant took the plaintiff to his house and lived thereon as husband and wife. This witness to prove her marriage with the defendant in accordance with the Hindu Shastra exhibited a series of document including joint photographs. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 in their respective evidence corroborated the evidence of PW-1 in respect of all material particulars. On perusal of the entire evidence on record it is found that in the instant case there is evidence enough on record both oral and documentary to show that the marriage between the parties taken place and they lived together as married spouse.
It appears that final court of fact, the appellate court has come to the conclusion that the trial court rightly decided the suit in favour of the plaintiff . In coming to this conclusion the said Court has observed that : “বিবাদীপক্ষের জেরার জবাব বাদিনী সুস্পষ্টভাব বলিয়াছন যে, বিগত ০৬/০৮/২০০৮খ্রিঃ তারিখ হইত তিনি স্বামী-স»ী হিসাব বিবাদীর বাড়িত বসবাস করিত থাকন এবং বিগত ১৭/০২/২০০৫ খ্রিঃ তারিখর পূর্ব তাহাদর মধ্য হিন্দু শাস মত বিবাহ না হইলও বাদিনী পক্ষর দাখিলী প্রদর্শনী-১ হইত প্রদর্শনী ১(১২) চিহ্রিত ফটাগ্রাফগুলি কানরুপ আপত্তি ব্যতিরক প্রমাণ ব্যবহূত হওয়ায় উক্ত ফটাগ্রাফগুলি পর্যালাচনায় দৃষ্ট হয় যে, বাদিনী ও বিবাদী পরস্পর অগ্নি সাক্ষী করিয়া ও সাতপাক ঘুরিয়া হিন্দু বিবাহর ~~বধতা নিরুপনর আবশ্যকীয় শর্ত পালন করিয়াছন এবং সেইহতু বাদিনী ও বিবাদীর মধ্য হিন্দু দায়ভাগ আইন অনুযায়ী ~~বধ বিবাহ সম্পন্ন হইয়াছ এবং বিবাদী প্রদর্শনী-২ চিহ্রিত এফিডভিট মূল বিবাহ বন্ধন ছিন্ন করিবার ঘোষনা প্রদান করিলও হিন্দু দায়ভাগ আইনানুযায়ী তাহাদর বিবাহ বিচ্ছদ অনুমাদিত না হওয়ায় তাহারা পরস্পর স্বামী-সী এবং সেক্ষত্র বাদিনী পৃথক বসবাস করিয়াও আজীবন বিবাদীর নিকট হইত খোরপাষ পাইত হকদার” This being purely a finding of fact based on assessment of the evidence on record. It is needless to say that this Court normally does not interfere into the question of fact arrived at by the appellate Court on consideration of the evidence on record.
Taking into consideration of all these evidences on record including the exhibited photographs, I am of the clear view that there was a marriage ceremony between the parties in the temple of the deity kali in presence of many persons according to Hindu Shastra and thus, in the facts and circumstance of the case the plaintiff-opposite party is entitled to get maintenance from 1.7.2005 to till her death in accordance with Hindu Shastra. Therefore, I find no difficulty whatever in holding that in defending the Rule the plea as canvassed by Mr. Goutom Kumar Roy that no marriage was solemnised between the parties according to Hindu Law is fallacious as well as misconceived.
Both the Courts below on the facts of the case and on consideration of the legal position rightly settled the fact that there was a marriage ceremony between the parties in the temple of the deity kali in presence of many persons according to Hindu Shastra. The judgments of both the courts below are found to be well-reasoned and well-supported by the materials on record. I, therefore, do not find any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment occasioning failure of justice so as to justify interference by this Court exercising revisional power under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. As marriage in fact has been proved in this case, the plaintiff-opposite party is entitled to get maintenance till her death in accordance with Hindu Shastra.
In the result, the Rule is discharged without any order as to costs.
The order of stay granted earlier by this Court stands vacated.
Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Courts concerned at once.