IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
B.K. Behera, J.
SRIMATI CHATI DEI - APPELLANT
Versus
HEMANTA KUMAR SAHU - RESPONDENT
Criminal Revision No. 291 of 1980
Decided On : 19-03-1992
MAINTENANCE - HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 7 - HINDU MARRIAGE - PROOF OF MARRIAGE - SUMMARY PROCEEDING - STRICT PROOF NOT REQUIRED - MAINTENANCE U/S 125 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - WIFE ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE DESPITE LACK OF STRICT PROOF OF MARRIAGE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a woman, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance from the opposite party, whom she claimed to be her husband. The petitioner alleged that the opposite party had impregnated her and subjected her to a forced abortion, and then deserted her. The opposite party denied the marriage and claimed that he had no relationship with the petitioner. The Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Angul, dismissed the petitioner's claim on the ground that she had failed to prove the marriage with the ceremonies required by Hindu Law and in particular, for failure to prove the rites and ceremonies including Saptapathi as required by the proviso (2) to Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner had proved that the opposite party married her on the Shripanchami day and that after staying together for about a fortnight, deserted the Petitioner who had no means to maintain herself and failed to maintain her. The court further held that the petitioner was entitled to maintenance u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had proved the marriage with the opposite party with the ceremonies required by Hindu Law? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to maintenance u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that in summary proceedings of this nature, the ceremonies required by law for a marriage are not strictly to be established and insisted upon as this section provides a swift and cheap remedy against any person who, despite means, neglects or refuses to maintain his wife and the primary object of this section is to prevent destitution, starvation and vagrancy. 2. The court held that the petitioner had proved that the opposite party married her on the Shripanchami day and that after staying together for about a fortnight, deserted the Petitioner who had no means to maintain herself and failed to maintain her. The court further held that the petitioner was entitled to maintenance u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application in revision, set aside the impugned order and directed payment of maintenance by the opposite party to the Petitioner at the rate of Rs. 75/- (seventy-five) per month with effect from March 28, 1979.
JUDGMENT :
B.K. Behera, J. - Loved by the opposite party and made to conceive for his sexual lust and then subjected by him to a forced abortion on the false pretext that she would be cured of the bysteric fits she was suffering from by the application of tablets and the forlorn by him, having fixed his eyes on another lady but ultimately married to the opposite party on February 1, 1979, the Shripanchami Day, according to law and customs governing the parties and deserted about a fortnight thereafter and left alone in the house of her husband who, with his father, left the house with the belongings and stayed elsewhere for which the Petitioner, unable to maintain herself, took shelter in the house of her parents, the Petitioner has now come to this Court for relief against the judicial order passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Angul, dismissing her claim for maintenance u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') as the married and deserted wife having no means to maintain herself on the ground of lack of legal and technical proof of marriage and the ceremonies thereto required by Hindu Law and in particular, for failure to prove the rites and ceremonies including Saptapathi as required by the proviso (2) to Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act. While Mr. B.B. Ratha, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has urged that strict proof of the marriage, which had been established on the evidence, was not to be, but had been insisted upon in a summary proceeding of this nature, Mr. P.K. Misra, the learned Counsel for the opposite party, has submitted that in the absence of proof of marriage with the ceremonies thereto and desertion the learned Magistrate was not legally wrong in dismissing the claim.
2. Sitting as I do in a Court of revision, normally the jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu and Ors. 47 (1979) C.L.T 624 (S.C.), referring to and relying on the principles laid down in two earlier decisions in the case of Amar Chand Agarwalla Vs. Shanti Bose and Another, etc., and Akalu Ahir and Ors. v. Kamdeo Ram 1973 S.C.D. 639, but having heard the learned Counsel for both the sides and perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on which reliance had been placed by the parties to the proceeding, I find, for the reasons to follow, that it would be just, legal, reasonable and proper to interfere with the impugned order based on technicalities and founded on inconsequential discrepancies in the testimony of the Petitioner and her witnesses including the priest, the barber and the drummer, besides the relations, as according to me, to maintain the order in the face of the clear and consistent evidence from the side of the Petitioner regarding her marriage to and desertion and neglect by the opposite party would amount to failure of justice.
3. Examining herself as P.W. 7, the Petitioner had testified vividly as to how the opposite party, having impregnated her and subjected her to a forced abortion by the application of tablets, left her and diverted his attention towards another lady with a proposal to marry her and as to how she brought this matter to the notice at the respectable persons of the locality, by presenting an application (Ext. 1), before whom the opposite party refused to marry her and the persons intervened and as to how she reported the matter at the Jarpada Police Station for which the opposite party and his father were called to the police station where they agreed that the opposite party would marry her. She had also deposed about the marriage which took place at about 8 p.m. on the Shripanchami Day with the performance of the ceremonies to the marriage including Saptapadi and about her being
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.