Mangatu Nag vs Tabo Mourya
2021 Latest Caselaw 3771 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                      AFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                    Order Reserved on 29.11.2021

                     Order Delivered on 17.12.2021

                          CRR No. 1316 of 2019

    Mangatu Nag, S/o Jhitru Nag, aged about 42 Years, R/o Koypal,
     Police Station Darbha, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

                                                              ----Petitioner

                                 Versus

    Tabo Mourya, W/o Mangatu Nag, aged about 33 Years, R/o Village
     Koypal, Police Station Darbha, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

                                                          ---- Respondent

For Petitioner Shri Siddharth Rathod, Advocate. For Respondent Shri Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya

C A V Order

1. The instant revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family

Court Act against the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the Family

Court, Bastar place Jagdalpur, C.G. in MJC Case No.22/2018

whereby respondent has been granted maintenance @ Rs.1,800/-

per month from the date of order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below was

not justified in granting maintenance to the respondent in view of the

material available on record. He submits that trial Court has wrongly

given a finding that the respondent is the legally married wife of the

present petitioner. He also submits that the respondent has not

produced any document regarding her marriage with the petitioner

nor any independent witness was examined by her, therefore, in

these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs.

Anantrao Shivram Adhav and another, reported in (1988) AIR

(SC) 644, the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore

Bench) in Sakariya vs. State of Madhya Pradhesh, (1991) MPLJ

878, and the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the matter of

Shibsankar Samanta vs. Smt. Sobhana Samanta, reported in

(1992) CriLJ 2196.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that

the respondent is a tribal woman and belongs to the remote area i.e.

Bastar. He submits that before 2018 respondent and petitioner were

living together as husband and wife but after 2018 i.e. after nine

years of marriage, petitioner started quarreling with respondent, he

refused to live with respondent and after some time he deserted her.

Therefore, respondent is living separately and she has no source of

income to maintain herself. So, the order passed by the Family

Court in favour of respondent is just and proper and needs no

interference by this Court.

Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Surpeme Court in

the matter of Pyla Mutyalamma Alias Satyavathi vs. Pyla Suri

Demudu and another, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 189, it is

submitted that if the husband and wife were living together for a

considerable period and there is a positive finding in favour of the

respondent/wife as to the marriage, the High Court in revision

cannot interfere with the said finding and cannot reassess the

evidence to substitute its own findings as it is pre-eminently a

question of fact.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. It is not disputed that present petitioner married another woman

namely Janki Bai in the year 2018 and this fact is admitted by

counsel for the petitioner in his argument. Prior to 2018, respondent

claimed to be living as a wife of the present petitioner. She has also

stated in her deposition that after the marriage performed in

Dantewada Temple, they were living together as husband and wife

and after nine years of their matrimonial life, petitioner started

quarreling with her, therefore, she was living separately in her

parental home. Thereafter, petitioner married another woman when

she went to her parental home.

6. True it is that the petitioner performed marriage with Janki Bai in the

year 2018 and to substantiate the said pleading, counsel for the

applicant has filed certain documents i.e. marriage certificate by

Gyatri Pariwar Trust, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, marriage

photographs and ration card of his family showing Janki Bai as his

wife as also the copy of Aadhar Cards as Annexures- A-2 to A-5.

Looking to the age of the petitioner i.e. 42 years and the admitted

fact that he performed marriage with Janki Bai in 2018, the

statement of respondent appears to be reliable that before 2018 she

was living with the petitioner as his wife and after 9 years of

marriage on being deserted by the petitioner she started living at her

parental home. The deposition of respondent is supported by the

statement of her father i.e. PW-2 Jatiya. Both of them remained firm

in their cross-examination and stated that as many as 20 people

were present when the respondent was married to the petitioner in a

temple. A suggestion was also given by the petitioner's counsel to

PW-1 Tabo Mourya/respondent during cross-examination that she

lived with the petitioner only for a few days, which was denied by her

and she stated she resided with him for nine years. Thus,

considering the entire depositions of PW-1 Tabo Mourya/respondent

and PW-2 Jatiya as also the evidence of NAW-1 Mangatu Nag and

NAW-2 Komal Singh Kashyap, the fact that the respondent is an

illiterate lady residing in the remote village area of Bastar, she has

categorically stated that she was married to the petitioner in a

temple and lived with him as his wife for nine years, though she

cannot mention any particular date of her marriage, this Court does

not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order granting

maintenance in favour of the respondent.

7. The argument of counsel for the petitioner that suggestions put to

the witnesses cannot be taken as evidence has no substance

because it is a well settled principle of law that the nature of proof of

marriage required for a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. need

not be so strong or conclusive as in a criminal proceeding to

establish the offence under Section 494 of IPC, since the object of

Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to afford a swift remedy, and determination by

the Magistrate as to the status of the parties is subject to a final

determination of the Civil Court. Hence, when the husband denies

that the applicant is not his wife, all that the Magistrate has to find in

a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is whether the evidence

led raises a presumption that the applicant was the wife of the

respondent. That would be sufficient for the Magistrate to pass an

order of granting maintenance. The judgments relied upon by

counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the

present case and as such of no help to him.

8. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case,

the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the positive

finding in favour of marriage between the parties given by the Family

Court, keeping in view the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Pyala Mutyalamma Alias Satyavathi (supra), this Court finds no

substance in the present revision petition for interference.

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

Gautam Chourdiya Judge Akhilesh