Point of Law: Term ‘wife’ in Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, includes a woman who has been divorced by a husband or who has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. J. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. S.G. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

2. In this petition, under Section 401 read with Sections 397 & 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner - Shri Bhola Nath Rai, has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 06.01.2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Jorhat in Misc. Case No.5/2015, whereby the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousands) per month, to the respondent No.1, as maintenance from the date of the order.

3. The factual background, leading to filing of the present revision petition, is adumbrated herein below:-

“Smti. Tutumoni Sonowal, the respondent No.1 here-in got married with the petitioner on 26.05.2008, as per social rites and lived together with him as husband and wife in a rented house in Titabor Town of Jorhat District. After the marriage, the petitioner started torturing her both mentally and physically; demanding dowry and he also tried to kill her. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Dhubri and leaving behind the respondent No.1, in a rented house at Titabor, the petitioner left for Dhubri, with the warning to her that she could come to Dhubri only when she is able to meet his demand of dowry. Thereafter, on 03.11.2013, the petitioner called the respondent No.1 to Guwahati and met her at the ISBT, Guwahati and enquired from her, if she had brought the demanded dowry and when she replied in negative, the petitioner sent her back to Jorhat. Then the respondent No.1 filed a case under Section 498-A of the IPC against the petitioner. Then the petitioner called the respondent No.1 to Kokrajhar and when she went there, she came to know that the petitioner is a married person, having his wife and children. Then in order to sustenance and being left with no other option the respondent No.1 had filed a petition before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat praying for granting her maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month. It is stated that the petitioner is a police personnel, and his monthly remuneration is Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and she has no source of income of her own.

Upon the said petition, the learned court below had registered a Misc. Case No.5/2015, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and issued notice to the petitioner. Then the petitioner entered appearance and contested the claim made by the respondent No.1 tooth and nail by filing written statement. The case of petitioner is that respondent No.1 is a widow and he knew her husband. He had disputed his monthly income, as claimed by the respondent No.1 and he has the burden to look after his old aged mother and his family.

Then after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the learned court below, vide impugned order dated 06.01.2016, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousands) per month, to the respondent No.1.”

4. Being highly aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.01.2016, the petitioner approached this Court, challenging the correctness or otherwise of the said order and contended to set aside the same inter alia, on the following grounds amongst others:-

(i) That, the learned Court below has erred in law and on facts while passing the impugned order;

(ii) That, the cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence is ‘proof beyond all reasonable doubt’ and in the present case, the respondent had totally failed to prove her marriage with the petitioner and as such the impugned order is perverse and erroneous;

(iii) That, the non-reading and miss-reading of the evidence on record have resulted in grave miscarriage of justice in the present case;

(iv) That, apart from oral evidence, the respondent had totally failed to bring any documentary evidence or photographs to prove the marriage and moreover, the witnesses examined by the respondent No.1 are all interested witnesses a