SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Chh) 455

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, J.
Sandhya @ Santrabai W/o Gajendra Ganguli - Appellant
Versus
Gajendra S/o Ratan Ganguli – Respondent
CRR No. 236 of 2016
Decided on : 29-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Dharmesh Srivastava, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the term 'wife' under Section 125 of CrPC should be interpreted liberally, considering the social context and the purpose of the provision, to empower destitute women and achieve social justice.

Headnote:

Chudi Marriage - Maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC - 125 of CrPC - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The applicants filed a revision petition against the order of the Family Court, which partly allowed the application filed by the applicants under Section 125 of CrPC, rejecting the claim of applicant No.1 for maintenance but awarding maintenance to applicants No.2 & 3. The non-applicant opposed the claim, stating that applicant No.1 was not legally wedded to him due to her previous marriage.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the rejection of applicant No.1's claim solely on the ground of not being the legally wedded wife was unjustified. It held that the term 'wife' under Section 125 of CrPC should be interpreted liberally, considering the social context and the purpose of the provision, and concluded that applicant No.1 was entitled to maintenance.

Issues: The main issue was whether applicant No.1, who had a Chudi marriage with the non-applicant, was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC despite not being the legally wedded wife.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the term 'wife' liberally, considering the social context and the purpose of the provision, and held that applicant No.1 was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. It also emphasized the need for social justice adjudication and the empowerment of destitute women.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision in part, modifying the impugned order to grant maintenance to applicant No.1 and adjusting the maintenance amount for applicants No.2 & 3. It also ordered the non-applicant to pay additional arrears of maintenance to applicant No.1.

ORDER :

1. Applicants have preferred this revision petition against the order dated 03.12.2015 passed in M.Cr.C. No.551/2014 by which learned Judge, Family Court, Kabirdham, District-Kabirdham partly allowed the application filed by applicants under Section 125 of CrPC and while rejecting claim of applicant No.1 for maintenance, awarded maintenance of Rs.1500/- p.m. each to applicants No.2 & 3 from the date of order.

2. Learned counsel for applicants submits that non-applicant was earlier married with Sunita Bai and from the said wedlock he was blessed with one child. After the death of his first wife, non-applicant performed Chudi marriage with applicant No.1. Both of them resided happily for about 12 years and from their wedlock they are blessed with two child i.e. applicants No.2 & 3. After the Chudi marriage with applicant No.1, name of applicants were also recorded in the service book of non-applicant as his wife and children. Subsequently, without there being any sufficient cause, the non-applicant deserted the applicants and stopped maintaining them. Therefore, applicants have filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC before the learned Family Court, which came to be allowed in part by impugned order, allowing claim of applicants No.2 & 3, however, claim of applicant No.1 was rejected on the ground that she being Chudi wife and not legally married wife of non-applicant is not entitled for maintenance. Such finding of learned Family Court is erroneous and liable to be interfered with in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further contended that the amount awarded as monthly maintenance to applicants No.2 & 3 is also too meager and insufficient to meet their expenses. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the order dated 12.10.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.755/2021, parties being Ashok Shrivastava v. Anju Samudri Shrivastava; Devarinti Venkatramana, Peddapanjani Mandal v. P.P., Hyd., reported in 2022 SCC Online AP 1310, Meghraj Sahu v. Lata Bai, reported in 2021 SCC Online Chh 1819 decided on 19.05.2021, Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and anther, reported in (2020) 19 SCC 342, Ramtabai Sahu v. Johan Ram Sahu, reported in 2018 SCC Online Chh 879 decided on 30.7.2018, Smt. Sukhraji v. Puran Prasad, in case of Criminal Revision No.471 of 2006 decided on 20.1.2017, Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and another, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 188.

3. Learned counsel for the non-applicant husband opposing the submissions of learned counsel for applicants, submits that there is no error in the finding recorded by trial Court that applicant No.1 is not legally wedded wife of non-applicant. Applicant No.1 was earlier married with one Ramesh of village-Patharra, however, as she developed illicit relation with one Dharmendra @ Fondi, therefore, she left the house of her husband and started residing in the company of Dharmendra. Applicant No.1 was having illicit relationship and till date she has not taken divorce from her earlier husband in accordance with law. Applicant No.1 could not have performed the second marriage during subsistence of first marriage with Ramesh and therefore the submission of counsel for the applicant that the applicant No.1 the wife of the non-applicant, is not sustainable. He further contended that the amount of compensation awarded to the applicants No.2 & 3 was just and proper. It is further contention of counsel for non-applicant that after passing of the order under Section 125 of CrPC on 3.12.2015, the applicants have further filed application under Section 127 of CrPC before the Family Court on 9.3.2018 seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to respondents No.2 & 3 and accordingly amount of compensation was enhanced by learned Family Court in the proceeding under Section 127 of CrPC vide order dated 9.3.2018 from Rs.1,500/- to 2,500/- to applicants No.2 & 3. Revision with respect to applicant No.2 & 3 in view of the subsequent order passed by

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top