The Orissa High Court opined that based on Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CRPC”) proceedings and findings of the Family Court, the marital status of the parties cannot be concluded. It can be done by the Civil Court under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 after the trial.
It was further held that it would be extremely unfair if the Courts get into the nitty-gritty of the marital status of the parties under the proceedings of Section 498(A) and conclude that due to lack of valid marriage, proceedings are not maintainable.
Brief Facts:
An FIR was lodged against the Petitioner by his wife (hereinafter referred to as “Informant”) alleging that the Petitioner and his mother subjected the wife to physical and mental cruelty as she was not given food when she stayed at Petitioner’s village. It was alleged that Petitioner went to the Police to lodge a false FIR against the wife and threatened her to get money from her father.
Based on the FIR, a charge sheet was filed against the Petitioner, and subsequently, Learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance of the offences and issued a process against the Petitioner. The Petitioner has now, therefore, approached this Court for quashing of order vide which cognizance of offences was taken.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was submitted that the Learned Judge, Family Court came to a finding that there was no marriage between the Informant and the Petitioner and therefore, no criminal proceedings can be maintained by her under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). It was argued that to attract Section 498(A), marriage between the parties is a pre-requisite and if there is no marriage, the said order has no sanctity under the law.
Contentions of the State:
It was submitted that if a husband contracts second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage, he can be charged under Section 498(A). It was argued that the Learned Family Court made the finding in a proceeding under Section 125 of CRPC which cannot declare the status of the Informant as a concubine or wife. The proceedings under Section 125 of CRPC cannot be made binding upon the present proceedings.
Observations of the Court:
The main issue for consideration in the present case was whether proceedings under Section 125 CRPC wherein it was concluded that the Informant is not the wife of the Petitioner can be made binding on proceedings under Section 498 (A) of IPC.
The Bench observed that the trial of the present case is yet to be conducted thus, the marriage between the parties based on evidence is yet to be examined. However, there is the existence of some material in FIR that is enough to take cognizance under Section 498(A) IPC. It was remarked that based on Section 125 proceedings and findings of the Family Court, the marital status of the parties cannot be concluded.
It was opined that Section 125 proceedings are limited for the purpose of maintenance but even in those proceedings strict proof of marriage normally should not be insisted upon by the Courts as a condition precedent for granting maintenance.
The High Court observed that to ascertain the marital status of the parties, recourse is in civil proceedings whereby a declaration could have been made based on evidence led. At best, the Family Court could have denied maintenance on the ground that the Informant could not establish her relationship with the Petitioner.
The Orissa High Court expounded that this Court does not have original jurisdiction to decide the marital status of the parties by way of a declaration. It can be done by the Civil Court under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 after the trial.
Opining that the proceedings can only be quashed if the basic ingredients are not disclosed from the prima facie reading of FIR. It was held that the intent of Section 498 (A) is to protect women from all kinds of torture and cruelty and it would be extremely unfair if the Courts get into the nitty-gritty of the marital status of the parties under the proceedings of Section 498(A) and conclude that due to lack of valid marriage, proceedings are not maintainable. This would demoralize women and cause mental agony.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the above-mentioned reasons, the Orissa High Court held that there was nothing on record to prove the grounds on which proceedings could be quashed and the cognizance taken by the S.D.J.M. appeared to be correct.
Accordingly, the CRLMC was dismissed.
Case Title: Jaga Sarabu v. State of Orissa & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Satapathy
Case No.: CRLMC No. 1327 of 2015
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Mr. A. Das
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Mr. S.N. Das
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :