The Chattisgarh High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Saman observed that the strict proof of marriage is not a requirement in the case under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. (Meghraj Sahu v. Smt. Lata Bai)
The Court noted that, “the parties had lived as a wife and spouse, enough to draw their marriage suppositions. It is found that the claimant and the respondent have lived together as a husband and wife for some time, based on the submissions and the present facts. It is undisputed now. The applicant’s only ground of dispute is that he was not legal when he married the respondent.”
Facts of the Case
This criminal revision petition was filed against the order Passed in M.J.C, granting monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C.
Contention of the Parties
It was submitted by counsel for the applicant that the impugned order is erroneous and illegal. The respondent has failed to prove that she was legally wedded wife of this applicant. Learned Family Court had erroneously held that although the respondent is not a legally wedded wife of the applicant even then, she was entitled for maintenance.
It was clear admission of the respondent in her cross-examination, that she was married to one Bisahu Ram Sahu and she has a son and daughter from that marriage. She also admitted that she has not obtained any divorce from Bisahu Ram Sahu from any Court of law. Another circumstance that was present was that the applicant was already married to one Devki Bai regarding which, the respondent had made admissions in her cross-examination. Therefore, the applicant and the respondent both were married and their spouses were living, hence, the relation between them could not be termed as a valid marriage.
Counsel for the applicant further referred on the case of Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and Another, wherein it was submitted that “it is not a case in which the respondent was ignorant about the previous marriage of the applicant, therefore, she cannot be deemed as the legally wedded wife of the applicant.”
Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions so made and submitted, that the respondent has proved her case to show her entitlement for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. After the dispute arose between the applicant and the respondent, a compromise had taken place between them.
He further referred to the judgment in the case of Smt. Motim Bai Borkar vs. Arjun Singh Borkar, wherein it was held by this Court that “the respondent had married the lady lived together as husband and wife and cohabited with her, now cannot be permitted to turn around and say that the petitioner is not his legally wedded wife.”
Courts Observation & Judgment
The Court noted that the learned Family Court has drawn a conclusion that the respondent is wife of the applicant on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sumitra Bai vs. Bheekam, reported in AIR 1985 SC 765 and on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 675, in which it has held that the strict proof of marriage is not a requirement in the case under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The fact established, that the parties were living as husband and wife is sufficient to draw presumption about their marriage. On the basis of the submissions made and the evidence present, it is found that now it is undisputed that the applicant and the respondent had resided together as husband and wife for sometime. The only ground of contest of the applicant is that his marriage with the respondent was not lawful.
The Court after appreciating the evidence and on the basis of the legal precedents cited, the facts in this case reveal that the applicant had knowledge that the respondent was already married to one Bisahu Ram Sahu, regarding which the respondent claims that she has obtained divorce in customary manner. This also is a fact, that the applicant was married to one Devki Bai in the year 1992-93, but there is no evidence present to show that the previous marriage of the applicant was continuing and subsisting when the marriage of the applicant with the respondent had in the year 2009. The witnesses of the respondent have stated about performance of marriage of the respondent with the applicant and also about the social meeting which was held on account of dispute between the applicant and the respondent, in which the applicant had admitted that the respondent is his wife and he had taken the responsibility for the respondent in compromise. The applicant side has not brought any evidence or examined the previous wife of the applicant, to show that the marriage of the applicant with his previous wife was continuing.
The Court noted, “After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the evidence of the case and the position of law as settled, the finding of the learned Family Court that the respondent has entitlement in a grant of maintenance cannot be said to be erroneous in any respect.”
The Court dismissing the petition held, “After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the evidence of the case and the position of law as settled, the finding of the learned Family Court that the respondent has entitlement in grant of maintenance cannot be said to be erroneous in any respect. Hence, I am of this view that this revision petition is devoid of any substance and the impugned order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
