Back
2020 Supreme(Cal) 237
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Madhumati Mitra, J.
Mamta Devi - Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Ram @ Rajesh Kumar And Another - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 3758 of 2013, 41 of 2014
Decided On : 06-03-2020
Pratima Misra, Advocate, Sumitra Datta Purkayastha, Advocate, Abhra Mukherjee, Advocate, Anita Kundu, Advocate, Sauradeep Dutta, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the marriage and the entitlement of the wife to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Validity of Marriage - Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - [MARRIAGE, MAINTENANCE] - [Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure] - The court discussed the validity of the marriage between the parties and the entitlement of the wife to maintenance. The key legal provisions discussed include the Hindu Marriage Act and the requirements for the validity of a marriage. The court found that the petitioner had succeeded in proving her marriage and that the plea that the marriage was a nullity due to the minority of the parties had no legal basis. The court also considered the conduct of the husband in neglecting to maintain his legally married wife and ordered an increase in the quantum of maintenance from Rs.1200 to Rs.2000 per month.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming to be the legally married wife of the opposite party. The opposite party denied the marriage and claimed to be married to another woman. The court analyzed the evidence regarding the marriage and the conduct of the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had succeeded in proving her marriage with the opposite party and that the marriage was solemnized prior to the opposite party's marriage with another woman. The court also found that the petitioner was entitled to maintenance and ordered an increase in the quantum of maintenance from Rs.1200 to Rs.2000 per month.
Issues: Validity of marriage, entitlement to maintenance, quantum of maintenance
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had proved her marriage with the opposite party and that the plea that the marriage was a nullity due to the minority of the parties had no legal basis. The court also considered the neglect of the husband in maintaining his legally married wife and ordered an increase in the quantum of maintenance.
Final Decision: The Revisional Application challenging the maintenance order was dismissed, and the Revisional Application seeking enhancement of maintenance was allowed. The opposite party was directed to pay maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.2000 per month from the date of filing of the application for maintenance.
JUDGMENT
Madhumati Mitra, J. - Both the Revisional Applications have been preferred challenging the same judgment and order dated August 21, 2013 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Raghunathpur, Purulia, in Misc. Case No.46 of 2001. Criminal revisional application being No.3758 of 2013 has been preferred by wife/petitioner and criminal Revisional Application being No.41 of 2014 has been preferred by petitioner/husband.
2. For the sake of convenience both the revisional applications have been heard together.
3. By the order impugned the Learned Magistrate directed the petitioner/husband to pay sum of Rs.1200/- per month to the petitioner/wife for her maintenance from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure i.e. on and from June 25, 2001.
4. The petitioner/wife in her application being CRR No.3758 of 2013 has prayed for enhancement of the quantum of maintenance. On the other hand the petitioner/husband by way of filing the revisional application being No.41 of 2014 has prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and order granting maintenance to the wife.
5. During the course of hearing the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband of CRR No.41 of 2014 has submitted that the opposite party is not the legally married wife of the petitioner and as such she is not entitled to get any maintenance. In support of her contention the Learned Counsel for the petitioner of CRR 41 of 2014 has forcefully submitted that the factum of marriage between the parties has been denied by the petitioner and the alleged wife totally failed to prove her marriage with the present petitioner by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. It is her further contention that at the time of solemnization of alleged marriage the parties to the alleged marriage were minor as reflected in their voter identity card issued by the Election commission and as such the alleged marriage has no binding force in the eye of law. The impugned judgment and order have been assailed on the ground that the Learned Magistrate came to his conclusion regarding the marriage of the parties without considering the materials placed on record and as such the findings of the Learned Judge regarding the marriage of the parties are not tenable in law. Another contention has been raised on behalf of the petitioner of CRR 41 of 2014 that the petitioner/wife has willfully withdrawn the society of the petitioner/husband and as such she is not legally entitled to get any maintenance in view of the provision of sub-Section 4 of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. On the contrary the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife of CRR 3758 of 2013 has submitted that the petitioner has succeeded in proving her marriage with the opposite party and she was being compelled to reside separately from her husband. According to the contention of Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife, the observations made by the Learned Trial Court regarding factum of marriage are based on cogent evidence adduced by the parties during trial. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife of CRR 3758 of 2013 has specifically contended that the amount of maintenance as determined by the Learned Magistrate is too much meagre for the maintenance of the wife. It is further contended that the husband has sufficient income and the amount of maintenance granted by the Learned Magistrate requires to be enhanced so that the wife can maintain herself properly.
7. From the contention of the parties it appears that the petitioner/wife has only challenged the quantum of maintenance and prayed for enhancement of said quantum of maintenance granted by the Learned Magistrate. On the other hand the opposite party/husband has come forward to challenge the entire judgment and order and has contended that the petitioner/wife is not his legal married wife and as such she is not entitled to get any maintenance from him.
8.
