ORISSA HIGH COURT
R. C. PATNAIK, J.
SAUDAMINI DEI
VERSUS
BHAGIRATHI RAJ
Criminal Revn. No. 307 of 1980,
Decided on : 18 -11 -1981.
MAINTENANCE - SECTION 125 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - STANDARD OF PROOF OF MARRIAGE - NOT AS HIGH AS REQUIRED IN PROSECUTION FOR BIGAMY OR PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE DIVORCE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking maintenance from her husband, the opposite party. The petitioner claimed that they were married in the Gandharba form and lived together as husband and wife. However, the opposite party denied the marriage and claimed that the petitioner was not his legally married wife.
Finding of the Court:
The Magistrate granted maintenance to the petitioner, but the Sessions Judge reversed the decision, holding that the petitioner failed to prove that she was the legally married wife of the opposite party.
Issues: 1. Whether the standard of proof of marriage in a proceeding under Section 125 of the CrPC is as high as required in a prosecution for bigamy or proceedings under the Divorce Act? 2. Whether the evidence adduced by the petitioner was sufficient to prove the marriage?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The standard of proof of marriage in a proceeding under Section 125 of the CrPC is not as high as required in a prosecution for bigamy or proceedings under the Divorce Act. 2. The evidence adduced by the petitioner, including the Panchayati Patra (a document signed by the parties and witnesses acknowledging the marriage) and the testimony of witnesses, was sufficient to prove the marriage.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the judgment of the Magistrate was restored.
JUDGEMENT
This revision by the wife is directed against the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge in revision reversing the decision of the Magistrate granting maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month in a proceeding under S.125 of Criminal P.C.
2. Facts shortly stated :
The parties were married in Falguna 1974 in Gandharba form by exchange of garlands. After some time the initial warmth vanished and there was dissension, and it is alleged by the petitioner, she was illtreated and later on driven out. The petitioner took shelter under the care of her father. At the instance of her father a Panchayati was convened and at the said Panchayati, the decision was that the opposite party would take back the petitioner and look after her properly. A Panchayati Patra (Ext. 2) was prepared. The gentlemen as well as the parties signed the same. In pursuance of the said settlement, the petitioner was taken back by the opposite party. However, amity did not long prevail and the petitioner was driven out again at the end of about three months. As the opposite party neglected/refused to maintain the petitioner, the petitioner was compelled to file the application.
3. The opposite party while traversing the allegations stated that there was never any marriage and the case had been filed at the instance of the villagers who had combined against him.
4. The petitioner examined eight witnesses and proved the Panchayati Patra (Ext. 2) : On a consideration of the evidence, the learned Magistrate found that petitioner was the wife of the opposite party and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month from the date of the order. The opposite party carried a revision and the learned Sessions Judge reversed the decision of the learned Magistrate holding that the petitioner "failed to prove that she is the legally married wife of the opposite party".
5. Shri B.K. Biswal, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the provisions contained in Chapter IX provide a speedy and summary remedy for providing maintenance and for preventing vagrancy. The decision of the Criminal Court not being decisive and it being always open to the husband to institute appropriate civil proceeding for a decisive decision, the learned Sessions Judge should not have gone into the niceties of questions of law to find if there was a valid marriage. He drew my attention to authorities reference to which have been made in a latter part.
6. Mr. Murty, learned counsel appearing for the husband, submitted that the form of marriage alleged to have been gone through had no sanction in law and so, there doing no marriage, the application of the petitioner was not maintainable and in that context, he referred me to the provisions contained in S.7 of the Hindu Marriage Act which provided that "a Hindu marriage might be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto". He contended that the alleged marriage having not been solemnized according to the requirements of Sub-Section (1) of Sec. 7, the petitioner could not claim to be the wife of the opposite party and the learned Sessions Judge rightly dismissed the application of the wife.
7. Against the background of the submissions made and the nature of the issues raised, it is necessary to determine the nature and scope of an enquiry under S.125 of Criminal P.C. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held :-
"Sections 488, 489 and 490 constitute one family. They have been grouped together in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of 1898 under the caption "of the maintenance of wives and children". This chapter, in the words of Sir James Fitzstephen, provides "a mode of preventing vagrancy, or at least of preventing its consequences". These provisions are intended to fulfil a social purpose. Their object is to compel a man to perform moral obligations which he owes to society in respect of his wife and children. By providing a simple, speedy but limited relief, they seek to ensure that th
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.