2020 Supreme(AP) 459

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
Palla Shanthi Kiran - Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 806 of 2019
Decided On : 17-06-2020

A woman whose marriage was annulled by a decree of nullity under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be brought within the sweep of the inclusive definition of "wife" on par with a divorced wife and her claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not legally sustainable.

Headnote:

MAINTENANCE - SECTION 125 CR.P.C. - WOMAN WHOSE MARRIAGE WAS ANNULLED BY A DECREE OF NULLITY UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - WHETHER CAN BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE SWEEP OF THE INCLUSIVE DEFINITION OF "WIFE" ON PAR WITH A DIVORCED WIFE AND WHETHER HER CLAIM FOR MAINTENANCE UNDER SECTION 125 CR.P.C. IS LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE - HELD, NO.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner and the respondent were married on 13.08.2017 as per Hindu rites and customs. Prior to the marriage, during the marriage talks, while fixing the marriage alliance, the respondent and his parents gave the bio-data of the respondent stating that he did M.S. and that he is working as a Design and Production Engineer in Sweden. Therefore, believing that the respondent is well-placed in employment that the marriage alliance was confirmed and the marriage was performed on 13.08.2017. Dowry of Rs.10.00 Lakhs and 76 tolas of gold, as demanded by the respondent and his parents, were given to him by the parents of the petitioner. After the marriage, when the nuptial ceremony was arranged, the respondent has postponed the ceremony on all the three nights on one pretext or the other without leading any conjugal life with the petitioner. Therefore, their marriage was not consummated. When the respondent proposed to have honeymoon trip, the petitioner readily accepted for the same with a fond hope that their marriage would be consummated. So, the couple went to Mauritius on 17.09.2017 for honeymoon trip and stayed in Mauritius till 23.09.2017. However, to the utter misfortune of the petitioner, their marriage was not consummated even during their honeymoon trip. The respondent threatened the petitioner not to disclose the said fact to anyone. The petitioner also came to know that the respondent is not working as a Design and Production Engineer as stated before the marriage and that he is working only as a Bartender. Whileso, both the petitioner and the respondent left for Sweden on 08.10.2017 where he was working at that time as a Bartender. Later, in the month of November, 2017, the Sweden Government expelled the respondent. Though the couple stayed in Lohalm till 18.11.2017, their marriage was not consummated. The respondent expressed his inability to consummate the marriage. Therefore, a panchayat was held in the presence of the elders. In the said panchayat, the respondent and his parents demanded Rs.15.00 Lakhs as additional dowry. The respondent also admitted about the non-consummation of the marriage. When the parents of the petitioner requested the respondent to stay for three days at their residence for nuptial ceremony, the respondent has postponed the same on one pretext or the other and he did not turn-up for consummation of the marriage. Therefore, she lodged a report with the police and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.4 of 2018 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 498-A, 506 of IPC r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As the petitioner has no source of income and as she is unable to maintain herself, she has also filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the respondent before the Family Court claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month. The respondent opposed the said claim. He has filed his counter denying the allegations made against him in the petition. It is pleaded by him that the petitioner used to pickup quarrels with him on trivial matters and she used to humiliate him saying that he is a low class, Ex-Bartender and that she came from a high class and rich family and that he is not a suitable match to her. He has pleaded that the petitioner did not allow him to touch her and she always used to drink alcohol and pickup quarrels with him. It is pleaded by him that the marriage was not consummated because of the petitioner as she did not allow him to touch her. It is also stated that the petitioner and her parents demanded Rs.50.00 Lakhs in the presence of the elders and insisted for mutual divorce. As he refused for the same that she foisted a false criminal case against him and his family members. He finally pleaded that as the marriage was performed against the wish of the petitioner and as the respondent belongs to middle class family that she could not adjust with him and she herself discarded him voluntarily. It is his case that at present he lost his job and he has no source of income and as the petitioner hails from a rich family and as she studied M.B.A. that she can maintain herself and thereby prayed for dismissal of the petition. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner alone was examined as PW.1. No other oral or documentary evidence was adduced by her. The respondent reported no evidence and he did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his case. It appears from the record that the petitioner has also filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for annulment of her marriage with the respondent on the ground that the respondent is impotent and incapable of performing sexual intercourse with her to fulfill his matrimonial obligations. The said petition in F.C.O.P.No.33 of 2018 on the file of the said Family Court was allowed annulling their marriage by a decree of nullity of marriage passed to that effect.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that a woman whose marriage was annulled by a decree of nullity under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be brought within the sweep of the inclusive definition of "wife" on par with a divorced wife and her claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not legally sustainable.

Issues: Whether a woman whose marriage was annulled by a decree of nullity under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act can be brought within the sweep of the inclusive definition of "wife" on par with a divorced wife and whether her claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is legally sustainable?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The explanation to Section 125 Cr.P.C. relating to 'wife' is solely confined to the situation of divorce only till remarriage and definition aimed at a singular situation cannot be stretched, associated or linked to nullity of marriage envisioned under Sections 11 or 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. Dissolution of marriage as a sequel to divorce should not be equated to decree of nullity. 3. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is an enabling provision whereunder the Court can grant relief to spouse having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, the revision petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court which passed the decree of annulment of marriage under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act and file an application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act to claim maintenance against the 2nd respondent herein.