Back
2008 Supreme(HP) 546
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
R.B. Misra, J.
CHATTER KALA — Appellant
Vs.
CHET RAM — Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2007
Decided On : 01-10-2008
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Vinod Gupta.
For the Respondents: Bimal Gupta, Kanwar Karan Singh.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a marriage with a person already having a living spouse is null and void, and the subsequent second wife is not entitled to maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Section 125 of Cr.P.C - [397 of Cr.P.C] - [125 of Cr.P.C] - The court discussed the issue of the petitioner's entitlement to maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C, based on the legality of her marriage with the respondent. The court analyzed the testimonies and evidence to determine the validity of the marriage and considered the Supreme Court's decision in Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, which held that a marriage with a person already having a living spouse is null and void, and the subsequent second wife is not entitled to maintenance.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C, claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The court examined the evidence regarding the validity of the marriage and the respondent's prior marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's marriage with the respondent was not valid as the respondent already had a living spouse, and therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the petitioner's marriage with the respondent, the respondent's neglect of maintenance, and his liability to maintain the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, which established that a marriage with a person already having a living spouse is null and void, and the subsequent second wife is not entitled to maintenance.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the petitioner's claim for maintenance.
JUDGMENT :
R.B. Misra, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present revision petition has been preferred under section 397 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 11.1.2007 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, HP in Cr. Revision No. 9/2006 titled as Chet Ram vs. Chatter Kala, whereby the judgment dated 28.2.2006 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karsog, District Mandi, HP in case No. 159-IV of 2004, has been set aside.
2. The petitioner Chatter Kala preferred a petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C before Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karsog, District Mandi for awarding maintenance for sum of Rs. 300/- whereby learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated 28.2.2006 awarded maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to the petitioner, from the date of filing of application. Being aggrieved, respondent Sh. Chet Ram, preferred a criminal revision No. 9.2006 before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, HP and on adjudication, the said revision was allowed vide order dated 11.1.2007 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandi District, thereby setting aside the order dated 28.2.2006 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karsog, District Mandi.
3. Being aggrieved against the order dated 11.1.2007, petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. In order to adjudicate the present controversy, it is necessary to refer the factual background of the case.
4. According to the petitioner, her marriage was solemnized on 14.10.1987 and in the beginning she remained comfortable with respondent, but after some time, she was badly treated by the respondent and was ousted from her matrimonial house. However, for a couple of months, she was again brought by the respondent but again was given bad treatment and was ousted by the respondent from her matrimonial house and from 1991 she had been residing with her parents as there is no issue from the wedlock. According to the petitioner, respondent had earlier married with one Churamani as his first wife and a child was born from the first wife on 24.1.1978, who is serving now in Army. However, according to the petitioner, respondent divorced his first wife and had again married with the petitioner. In order to adjudicate the petition preferred under section 125 Cr.P.C. learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate framed as many four issues which are as under:
1. Whether the petitioner is legally wedded wife of respondent?
2. Whether the respondent has wilfully and intentionally neglected the petitioner from maintenance?
3. Whether the respondent is having sufficient means and liable to maintain the petitioner.
4. Final order?
5. Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate also examined as many as six witnesses i.e. PW-1, petitioner Chatter Kala, PW-2 Baldev Singh, Panchayat Assistant, PW-3, Krishan Lal, Jr. Assistant of Ayurvedic Hospital, PW-4 Sarna, PW-5, Mr. Shera, father of Chatter Kala and PW-6 Mukand Sharma, Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Taluna. RW-1, Chet Ram was also examined. RW-2, Paras Ram, son of Chet Ram from first wife was also examined. RW-3 Smt. Churamani, first wife of respondent was also examined.
6. As per testimony of PW-1, Chatter Kala, she had been married with respondent on 14.10.1987 and to that effect, an affidavit of respondent has also been exhibited as Ext PA, which reveals that respondent has put signature on this affidavit and has declared that he has married to petitioner as per Hindu rituals. PW-2 Baldev Singh has deposed that as per Panchayat Register, the marriage of petitioner with respondent was recorded as 10.11.1987. However, as per testimony of PW-2, nothing has been indicated about the divorce of respondent with his first wife, namely, Churamani. PW-3 has simply testified that respondent is working in Ayurvedic hospital as an employee and his salary certificate has been produced. As per testimony of PW-4, it becomes apparent that the marriage of respondent with petitioner took place in the yea
