Vishnukunwar vs Kailash
2024 Latest Caselaw 12661 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vishnukunwar vs Kailash on 6 May, 2024

Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla

Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla

                                                             1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                    BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                   ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2024
                                           CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1146 of 2014

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    VISHNUKUNWAR W/O KAILASH MALI, AGED
                                 ABOUT 38 YEARS, ONKARLAL JI MANDOLIYA KA
                                 MAKAN, 500, QUARTER THANA, Y.D. NAGAR,
                                 MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    ROHIT S/O KAILASH MALI (MINOR), AGED
                                 ABOUT 8 YEARS, UNKARLAL JI, MANDOLIYA KA
                                 MAKAN 500 QUARTERS THANA YD NAGAR
                                 MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPLICANTS
                           (NONE FOR THE APPLICANTS)

                           AND
                           KAILASH S/O DEVILAL MALI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
                           OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM HATUNIYA TEH.
                           PRATAPGARH, RAJASTHAN / INDRA COLONY BEHIND
                           OF NAHAR SAIYYAD DARGAH, MANDSAUR (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI SATISH JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL)

                                 T h is revision coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

The revision is of year 2014, therefore, considered on merit.

2. The present revision is filed under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act by wife and child being aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2014 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandsaur in Criminal Case No.253/2014 whereby the application filed by applicants under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for

maintenance has been partly allowed.

3. The applicant has been held disentitled for maintenance and the applicant No.2 has been awarded Rs.1000/- as maintenance per month from the date of order.

4. Upon perusal of the record, the facts of the case are that the applicants filed an application claiming that the applicant No.1 is legally married wife of the non-applicant and out of their relationship, applicant No.2 got born. It is alleged that the respondent No.1 used to beat her in a general condition and used demand dowry of Rs.50,000/-. Before 3-4 months of the presentation of the application, the respondent has committed marpit with her and ousted her

from his house. Upon perusal of the evidence, the Court found that the non- applicant was already married prior to the marriage with the applicant and there was no divorce of the non-applicant with his earlier wife. It is further considered that the applicant was also married. The non-applicant supported the order and submitted that the Family Court has rightly denied the maintenance because the applicant No.1 was not valid married wife and even if her version is accepted, she got married with the non-applicant having living spouse and, therefore, she was not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In support of his submission, the non-applicant has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav & Anr. 1988(1) SCC 530 and (2005) 3 SCC 636.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is noted that in the deposition the applicant No.1 has clearly stated that she married the non-applicant and lived with him as husband wife for a period of 15-20 years and out of their relationship, the applicant No.2 got born.

This Court finds that the trial Court erred while rejecting the application of the applicant No.1 for maintenance on the ground that she was not validly married wife. The Apex Court in the case of Chanmuniya v. Virender Kumar Singh Kushwaha, JT 2010 (11) SC 132 held that construing the term 'wife' broad and extensive interpretation should be given to term 'wife' to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a pre-condition for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

6. The judgments pressed into service by the non-applicants are prior in time of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Chanmuniya (supra), therefore, the same would not render any assistance.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the revision is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Family Court to re-decide the matter in view of the aforesaid judgments to the extent of wife only.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE soumya