Patna High Court
Kanchan Kumari vs Sujit Kumar on 30 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.158 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Begusarai
======================================================
Kanchan Kumari S/O Sri Sujit Kumar, R/v- Rahua, P.S.- Sahebpur Kamal,
District- Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Sujit Kumar S/O Dukh Haran Yadav, R/v- Rahua, P.S.- Sahebpur Kamal,
District- Begusarai Presently residing at Bank of Baroda, Metro Mumbai East
Regional Office, Dev Darshan Building, 1st Floor, Eving Pession Road,
Bhandpu, Mumbai (Maharastra)
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Surya Nilambari, Advocate
For the Opposite party : Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 30-04-2025
The instant revision is directed against the impugned
judgment and order dated 19th November, 2022 passed in
Maintenance Case No. 124 of 2018 by the learned Principal Judge
Family Court, Begusarai, whereby and whereunder, the application
under Section 125 of the CrPC was rejected by the learned
Principal Judge and as a consequence thereof, Maintenance Case
No. 124/2018 was dismissed.
2. The petitioner is the wife in the Maintenance Case
before this Court, challenging the impugned order dated 19 th
November 2022.
3. Marriage between the Petitioner and the Opposite
Party was solemnized on 31.01.2016 as per Hindu rites and rituals,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.158 of 2023 dt.30-04-2025
2/11
at the maternal house of the Petitioner in Vishnupur (District
Begusarai). The Bank of Baroda employed the Opposite Party and
posted in Mumbai (Maharashtra). After the wedding ceremony on
31.01.2016
, the petitioner and the opposite party stayed together at
Vishnupur (maternal house of the Petitioner) for 4 days and
consummated their marriage. Thereafter, the Opposite Party left
the Petitioner at her maternal home and went to Mumbai on the
pretext of joining his job. The Opposite Party promised the
Petitioner that he would return after obtaining leave from his office
and take her to her matrimonial house at Rahua (District
-Begusarai) and then to Mumbai. For the next 4-5 months, the
Opposite Party regularly talked to the Petitioner over phone and
even transferred money into her bank account to maintain herself.
The Opposite Party even visited the petitioner at her maternal
home. However, the Opposite Party refused to take her either to
her matrimonial house in Rahua or Mumbai.
4. Soon, the Opposite Party started demanding Rs. 10
Lakhs dowry from the Petitioner and her family and refused to
keep the Petitioner as wife, if his demands were not met. Other
family members of the Opposite Party i.e. his mother, father, and
brother started calling the Petitioner, making demand for Rs. 10
Lakhs. The Petitioner along with her family members visited her
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.158 of 2023 dt.30-04-2025
matrimonial house at Rahua but was ill-treated by her in-laws. The
in-laws of the Petitioner insisted on meeting their illegal demand
of Rs. 10 Lakhs.
5. In June 2018 the Petitioner came to know that the
Opposite Party had remarried one Seema Kumari. The Petitioner
went to Rahua and confronted the Opposite Party No. 2. The
Petitioner was abused and assaulted by the Opposite Party No. 2
and his associates. The Petitioner approached Mukhiya, Sarpanch,
and other renowned persons of the village, Rahua to intervene in
the matter. Upon their intervention, the Opposite Party provided a
room for the Petitioner and since June 2018, the Petitioner has
been staying in her matrimonial house at Rahua. However, the
Petitioner was dependent on the grains and money received from
her maternal side to survive at Rahua. The Opposite Party never
treated her as a wife and failed to maintain her.
6. During examination-in-chief and cross-examination, it
came to light that the Petitioner had been living at her father's
place for 3-4 months but had not been living with his father for the
last two months. Dukh Haran Yadav, who is the father of the
opposite party, states that the Petitioner was living with him till
four months ago, but has not been staying with him for the last
couple of months, whereas applicant witness no. 1. Kanchan
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.158 of 2023 dt.30-04-2025
Kumari herself has admitted in cross examination that she has
never gone to her in-laws' house. Opposite party witness no. 2 has
said in his cross-examination that he is not married to the
Petitioner and he does not even know or recognize the Petitioner,
and the photograph produced to prove the marriage in the suit is
false, and he has never been to the applicant's maternal home.
Looking into the evidence, the Family Court below passed an
order dated 19.11.2022 in Maintenance Case No. 124/2018 by the
Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai whereby and
whereunder the maintenance case filed under Section 125 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the Court came to the finding that
the applicant is not the wife of the opponent or any relationship
like the wife is not presented as evidence in the suit.
7. In the instant revision, it is contended on behalf of the
petitioner that the learned trial judge failed to appreciate that the
marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the opposite party
according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The priest who presided
over alleged marriage in the trial court and stated on oath that he
gave marriage of petitioner with the O.P. Thirdly, the evidence on
record suggested that the petitioner stayed in her matrimonial
home for about 3/4 months. The learned Advocate for the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.158 of 2023 dt.30-04-2025
petitioner has raised a question as to why a lady would stay in the
house of the opposite party without having any relation.
8. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate on behalf
of the petitioner that admittedly, the opposite party sent some
money for few months for maintenance of the petitioner. Thus, by
allowing the petitioner to stay in the paternal home of the opposite
party and sending her money for her maintenance, the opposite
party admitted that the petitioner is legally married wife of the
opposite party.
9. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate for the
petitioner that an application under Section 125 of the CrPC is
disposed of in a summary procedure. It is a trite law that strict
proof of marriage in a proceeding under Section 125 of the CrPC
is not necessary. In Pyla Mutyalamma v. Pyla Suri Demudu,
reported in (2011) 12 SCC 189, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that the law presumes in favour of the marriage against
concubinage that a man and a woman have cohabited continuously
for a long number of years and when they are proved to have lived
together as a husband and the wife, the law will presume, unless
the contrary is clearly proved, that they were lving together in
consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.158 of 2023 dt.30-04-2025
10. On the same point, the learned Advocate for the
petitioner refers to another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit, reported in
(1999) 7 SCC 675. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforementioned decision that in a proceeding under Section 125 of
the CrPC, standard of proof in respect of marriage is not as strict
as is required in a trial for the offence of bigamy under Section 494
of the IPC. Once it is admitted that a marriage procedure was
valid, it is not necessary to prove that procedure was complete as
per religious rites. The husband denying validity of marriage
claiming that he underwent ceremony under duress at knife point
was not taken into consideration by the revision court and
marriage of the petitioner was presumed to be solemnized and
therefore, the revisional court held that the wife is entitled to get
maintenance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the order of
the revisional court in the above-mentioned reported decision.
11. The learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner
draws my attention to the evidence adduced by the parties during
trial of the maintenance proceeding. According to the petitioner,
who deposed during trial as witness no. 1 stated that her marriage
was solemnized on 31st January, 2016 according to Hindu rites and
ceremonies. After marriage, her husband stayed in their house for
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.158 of 2023 dt.30-04-2025
3/4 days and then went back to his place of work at Mumbai. The
petitioner was not taken to her matrimonial house as per the rituals
after marriage. It is also stated by the petitioner that in the month
of June, 2018, the opposite party performed a second marriage
with one Seema Kumari, daughter of one Vijay Yadav. The
petitioner went to her matrimonial home subsequently, but she was
tortured by her father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law.
She was not offered with proper food and clothing, so she has filed
the application under Section 125 of the CrPC. During her cross-
examination, she clearly admitted in paragraph no. 18 of the cross-
examination that she never stayed together with the opposite party.
On 31st January 2016, the opposite party came to her house,
married her and left his matrimonial home.
12. In view of such circumstances, this Court finds that
the facts and circumstances of this case is not applicable with the
facts in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy (supra). The
marital tie between the parties is presumed in the background of
their staying together for a considerable period of time with
cohabitation. In the instant case, the petitioner admits that she
never stayed with the opposite party.
13. With regard to the performance of marriage
according to Hindu rites and ceremonies, though, it is not
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.158 of 2023 dt.30-04-2025
permissible for the revisional court to decide the question as to
whether all the ceremonial rituals according to Hindu rites and
ceremonies were performed in the alleged marriage between the
petitioner and the opposite party, i.e., Sujit Kumar, the Court at
least expects when the priest was examined as a witness on behalf
of the petitioner that he would tell abut the essential ceremonies
which were performed in the alleged marriage between the
petitioner and the opposite party.
14. The petitioner examined the priest who solemnized
her marriage with the opposite party but the said priest in his
evidence stated that he was not in a position to recollect the rituals
performed in the said marriage of the petitioner and the opposite
party. He failed to state as to whether Saptapadi was performed
which is essential ritual of marriage.
15. In the case of disputed marriage, the burden of proof
has been decided in the following case, namely, Tulsa v.
Durghatiya reported in (2008) 4 SCC 520, where it is held by the
Supreme Court that long cohabitation and public recognition can
be strong evidence of a valid marriage unless clearly proven
otherwise.
16. The Court emphasized the legal presumption that
arises when a man and a woman live together for a long time as
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.158 of 2023 dt.30-04-2025
husband and wife. In such cases, unless proven otherwise, the law
presumes a valid marriage.
"Where a man and woman have cohabited continuously
for several years and live as husband and wife, there is a strong
presumption in favor of their marriage."
17. This presumption is based on Section 114 of the
Indian Evidence Act, which allows courts to presume the existence
of a fact that appears to be natural or probable in the given
circumstances. In the instant case, the petitioner was not able to
prove that she was cohabitating with the opposite party for long.
Looking into the evidence, neither the Petitioner nor the opposite
party made any statement that will show the long period of
cohabitation between the parties. Petitioner while getting her
statements recorded has mentioned that she has not gone to her
matrimonial house which is in Rahua village nor has she been
living with his husband at his place of work in Mumbai. Hence,
the Court comes to the finding that there is no long cohabitation
between the parties nor there is any public recognition of the
parties in the society they live in. The Petitioner was not able to
establish her valid marriage with the Opposite Party.
18. Thus, it appears from evidence on record that the
petitioner failed to prove that she was allowed to stay in her
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.158 of 2023 dt.30-04-2025
matrimonial home as the wife of the opposite party. On the other
hand, it has come in evidence that she was allowed to stay in one
room of the opposite party on being requested by the Mukhiya of
the village for about 3/4 months. There is no evidence that during
the said period, the opposite party stayed with her and the alleged
marriage was consummated. The learned Advocate on behalf of
the petitioner lays great stress on two photographs, jointly with the
petitioner and the opposite party. The said photographs have not
been proved in accordance with the requirement of the Evidence
Act. However, on perusal of the photographs which the petitioner
claimed to be the photograph of the marriage between her and the
opposite party, i.e., Sujit Kumar, it is found that the petitioner
dressed as a bride is sitting by the side of Sujit Kumar, who was
wearing a normal shirt-pant and sweater. He was not wearing any
traditional dress of the groom. Both the photographs, on naked
eye, appeared to be morphed.
19. Considering the entire materials on record, this
Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Judge did not commit
any illegality, irregularity and rightly held that the petitioner failed
to prove her marriage with the opposite party.
20. Since the petitioner failed to prove that she is the
legally married wife of the opposite party, she is not entitled to get
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.158 of 2023 dt.30-04-2025
any maintenance. Therefore, the order passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court in Maintenance Case No. 124 of
2018 is affirmed. The instant revision is accordingly, dismissed on
contest. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
Suraj Dubey/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 15.04.2025
Uploading Date 30.04.2025
Transmission Date 30.04.2025
