Allahabad High Court
Paras Giri vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 25 June, 2015
Bench: Suneet Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 3
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2142 of 2015
Revisionist :- Paras Giri
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- V.R. Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
The revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 06.05.2015 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court Deoria in Maintenance Case No.685 of 2014 Smt. Bhagwati Devi Vs Paras Giri, under Section 125 Cr.P.C granting Rs.3000/- per month from the date of order towards maintenance.
The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that, the impugned order is ex-parte order passed behind the back of the revisionist. The opposite party No.2 is not a family member of the revisionist and has no concern with the revisionist. The proceeding has been initiated maliciously at the behest of opposite party No.3 who is co-villager and a practicing lawyer at the civil court.
The impugned order noted that the revisionist was married to the opposite party No.2 according to hindu rites and rituals 40 years ago, from the marriage a son and daughters were begotten. The revisionist is an employee of Scooter India Limited, earning Rs.20000/-. per month The revisionist contracted a second marriage with Veena Phool Kumari without the consent of the opposite party No.2 and out of the second wedlock three children were begotten. The opposite party No.2 is an illiterate lady, is unable to maintain herself and is residing at the village.
The revisionist appeared and filed his objection stating that he never married the opposite party No.2, Veena Phoolkumari Devi is his sole wife.
The opposite party No.2 in her statement/examination reiterated the fact stated in her application, however, the revisionist failed to cross examine the opposite party No.2, consequently, on 15.04.2015 the cross examination by the revisionist was closed and an order was passed to proceed ex-parte. The revisionist did not file any application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. for recall of the ex-parte order.
The Supreme Court in Rajathi vs. C. Ganesan1 observed that where the husband was living with another women would entitle the wife to live separately and would amount to neglect or refusal to maintain. Her statement that wife is unable to maintain herself is sufficient.
Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a piece of social legislation which provide for summoning and summary relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children. The section is not intended to provide for a full and final determination of status and personal rights of parties, which is in the nature of a civil proceedings, those are governed by provisions of C.P.C. and an order made under section 125 Cr.P.C. is tentative and is subject to final determination of rights in a civil court. (Refer: Nagendrappa Natikar Vs Neelamma2).
Similarly, the Supreme Court in Badshah Godse Vs. Urmilla Badshah Godse3 held that section 125 Cr.P.C is social justice legislation, therefore, distinct approach has to be adopted while dealing with cases under the said provisions. The Court observed as follows:-
"While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalized sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve "social justice" which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of the social justice."
In the fact of the case the Court held that the husband had duped the second wife by not revealing to her the fact of his earlier marriage, it was held that husband cannot deny maintenance to her in such a case. He cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. For purpose of 125 Cr.P.C. said women would be treated as a legally wedded wife, reliance was placed upon a Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs.Bidyut Prava Dixit4 and Chanmuniya vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha5.
Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist was unable to satisfy the Court as to why the revisionist did not file any recall application against the ex-parte proceedings, further, as to why the revisionist did not appear to cross examine the opposite party No.2.
The onus was on the revisionist to establish that the opposite party No.2 was not a legally wedded wife however, the revisionist failed to discharge the onus.
In these circumstances, upon considering the materials available on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Deoria.
The revision being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.6.2015
Himanshu
