Jharkhand High Court
Mihir Kumbhkar vs Urmila Devi on 18 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 661 of 2015
Mihir Kumbhkar, s/o Sarathi Kumhar, r/o Deoli, PO-Deoli, PS-
Govindpur, Dist.-Dhanbad .... . Petitioner
Versus
Urmila Devi, d/o Sri Anil Kumbhkar, r/o Suringa, PO & PS-Tisri
(Alkdiha OP), Dist.-Dhanbad ... Opposite Party
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate
For the O.P. : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
-------
Order No. 08 /Dated: 18th October 2021
The petitioner claimed before the Family Court that Urmila Devi is
not his legally wedded wife, rather he was married to Sabita Kumbhkar
who had filed T.M.S. No.91 of 1992, M.P. Case No.530 of 1995, C.P.
Case No. 815 of 1992 and Cr. Misc. Case No.11 of 2004 against him.
2. The learned Family Court Judge, Dhanbad allowed the application
under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Urmila
Devi seeking maintenance for herself and her sons, and directed the
petitioner to pay Rs.1000/- to Urmila Devi and Rs.500/- each to her two
minor sons for their monthly allowance.
3. The judgment in M.P. Case No.38 of 2002 is under challenge
primarily on the ground that overwhelming evidences laid by the
petitioner to prove his marriage with Sabita Kumbhkar were ignored by
the learned Family Court and on mere ipse dixit of Urmila Devi the
petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to her as his wife and her two
sons as if they were born from the wedlock with the petitioner.
4. In the proceeding of M.P. Case No.38 of 2002, Urmila Devi
examined herself as PW1 to depose in the Court that she was married
with the petitioner about 25 years back and two sons were born out of
wedlock in the next 8-10 years. She gave evidence in the Court that her
first son was born on 18th May 1998 and the second son on 15 th April
2002 but her husband did not maintain them. After the marriage, the
petitioner brought one Sabita Kumbhkar with whom he was previously
married and started living with her and that was the reason she was ousted
from her matrimonial home and in this regard she has filed C.P. Case
No.239 of 2001 alleging that the petitioner fraudulently contracted
marriage with her while he was already married to Sabita Kumbhkar. Her
husband remained utterly negligent to his duty as husband and father and
failed to maintain them, and that she has no independent source of
income. She further claimed that her marriage with the petitioner was
solemnized by Ajit Pandey who was produced by her as PW2. Her son
also came to the Court and examined himself as PW3 to support the claim
for maintenance raised by her against the petitioner.
5. The petitioner who was the opposite party in M.P. Case No.38 of
2002 laid in evidence the show-cause notice in T.M.S. No.91 of 1992,
notice in M.P. Case No.530 of 1995, copy of petition of compromise filed
in C.P. Case No.815 of 1992 and deposition in Cr. Misc. Case No.11 of
2004 to show that Sabita Kumbhkar was his legally wedded wife. He has
also produced Adhar Card of Urmila Devi to show that she was married
to Haru Kumbhkar.
6. The learned Family Court Judge has, however, disbelieved the
documentary evidence produced by the petitioner on the ground that
those documents were prepared after institution of M.P. Case No.38 of
2002. As regards marriage of Urmila Devi with the petitioner, the learned
Family Court Judge has referred to the judgment in "Chanmuniya v.
Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr." AIR 2010 SC (Supp.) 29 to
observe that strict proof of marriage is not a precondition for grant of
maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
learned Family Court Judge has further held that the claim of Urmila
Devi that she is unable to maintain herself and her two sons was not
controverted by the petitioner.
7. The proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure are summary in nature and strict compliance of the rules of
evidence is not insisted upon in such proceedings. Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure provides speedy remedy to a wife, minor
children and old parents to ensure that they do not live in penury. Even
though the rituals of marriage were not performed and no document
regarding marriage is laid in evidence, an application under section 125
of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be maintained by a woman
claiming that she was married to a man who neglected to maintain her.
8. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Dwarika
Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another" (1999) 7 SCC 675
that the order passed in an application under section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure does not finally determine the rights and obligations
of the parties and the said section is enacted with a view to provide a
summary remedy for providing maintenance to a wife, children and
parents needs to be kept in mind while examining legality of the
judgment dated 3rd March 2015 passed in M.P. Case No.38 of 2002. The
Court is also required to keep in mind that on mere technical objections
claim of a wife seeking maintenance under section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure should not be avoided.
9. In "Dwarika Prasad Satpathy" the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as under:
"6.... In our view, validity of the marriage for the purpose of
summary proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C is to be
determined on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the
parties. The standard of proof of marriage in such proceedings
is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under Section
494 IPC. If the claimant in proceedings under section 125 of the
Code succeeds in showing that she and the respondent have
lived together as husband and wife, the court can presume that
they are legally wedded spouses, and in such a situation, the
party who denies the marital status can rebut the
presumption....."
10. Urmila Devi has produced evidence through herself and the priest
who performed her marriage with the petitioner to show that she was
married with the petitioner about 25 years back. Her evidence that two
sons were born from the wedlock with the petitioner has also remained
intact on record. The findings of the learned Family Court that the
applicant has no independent source of sustenance and the opposite party
neglected to support her and her children are not under challenge.
11. In the aforesaid facts, having examined the materials on record and
keeping in mind the limitations of the revisional jurisdiction, I am not
inclined to interfere in this matter and, accordingly, Criminal Revision
No. 661 of 2015 is dismissed.
12. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned
through 'Fax'.
13. Let the lower Court records be sent to the Court concerned
forthwith.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
sudhir
