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

2022 Supreme(All) 516

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
Smt. Kahkashan and Others – Appellants
Versus
Umesh Kumar Gupta @ Abbas Husain Kahkashan – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 670 of 2016
Decided On : 18-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mohiuddin Khan, Mohammad Aslam Khan.
For the Respondents: Lokendra Kumar Gupta, Ravendra Pratap Singh Cha.

Point of Law: The term ‘wife’ in Section 125 of the Code includes a woman who has been divorced by her husband or who has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. A woman not having the legal status of a wife is thus brought within the inclusive definition of the term ‘wife’ Consistent with the objective.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 125 - Claiming Maintenance - Applicant filed as an annexure to application - After such wedding applicant started living in the Respondent’s home and three daughters born out of the wedlock - Initially Respondent took good care of applicant and her children but later on started neglecting them as three daughters were born to her one after another and he wanted a son - Youngest daughter baby Hina was born on 15 May 2009 and Respondent left Applicant - Hindu marriages have continued to be bigamous despite the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court had commented that though such marriages are illegal as per the provisions of the Act, they are not immoral and hence financially dependent woman cannot be denied maintenance on this ground.

Finding of the Court:

There was no proof of marriage by Muslim rites and rituals of the Revisionist no. 1 with the Respondent. She may have married one Abbas Hussain Khun but she could not prove that Respondent, Umesh Kumar Gupta was also known as Abbas Hussain Khun - Revisionist could not prove even a live-in relationship in a separate matrimonial home, and of the revisionist being recognized as wife of Umesh Gupta by the public at large - There was no proof of first marriage having been concealed by Respondent before alleged marriage to the Revisionist No. 1 - Photographs submitted in original and the CD and mobile phone set submitted by the Revisionist No. 1 could however prove familiarity to the extent of intimacy of Respondent with the Revisionist No. 1 and with her family members - Concubinage can be presumed from careful examination of mobile phone set and Compact Disc submitted - In such a case children, i.e. Revisionist No. 2, 3 and 4 are entitled to maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month each from the Respondent from the date of this judgment till their respective marriages - Respondent shall also be responsible to bear all their wedding expenses.

Result: Criminal Revision is disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for the Revisionists and Sri Lokendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Kahkashan, the Revisionist No. 1 alongwith her three minor daughters filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on 3 August 2009 claiming maintenance from the respondent of Rs. 20,000 per month for herself and 10,000 per month each for her three daughters i.e. a total of Rs. 50,000 per month. The facts as mentioned by her were that the Applicant had married the Respondent Umesh Kumar Gupta @ Abbas Hussain ‘Khun Khun’ on 24 October 2002 as per Muslim rites and rituals at the residence of the Applicant. The Nikahnamma had been filed as an annexure to the application. After such wedding the applicant started living in the Respondent’s home and three daughters, namely, Neha aged about seven years, Kiran aged about five years, and baby Hina aged about two months, were born out of the wedlock. Initially the Respondent took good care of the applicant and her children but later on started neglecting them as three daughters were born to her one after another and he wanted a son. The youngest daughter baby Hina was born on 15 May 2009 and the Respondent left the Applicant 20 May 2009. Because of financial difficulty faced by the Applicant she had to withdraw her daughters from City Montessori School and get them admitted in a cheaper school. She was facing great hardship as she did not have any skill and no income of her own, whereas the Respondent was a very well-known businessman having a factory for manufacturing of batteries by the name of Kaali Power and he earned about Rs. 4 lakhs per month. As such the Respondent was having sufficient means to look after his wife and children i.e. the applicants.

3. The Respondent filed an objection to such Application Paper No. Kha-9, where he denied having converted to Islam and marrying the Applicant. It was stated that a forged Nikahnama had been produced in court by the Applicant and her father. Since there was no wedding performed, there was no question of the Applicant going and living in his home or three daughters being born out of the wedlock. The Applicant had herself stated that the wedding took place on 24 October 2002. However the eldest daughter was seven years old at the time of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in August, 2009, which was not possible. It was alleged that the Respondent had no concern at all with the children of the Applicant. The Respondent was a staunch Hindu by birth. He had got married some eighteen years ago and his wife was still alive and he had two children from the said wedlock and they were living a happy family life. The Application had been filed by the Applicant as a result of a conspiracy between her and her father, Mohd. Raees Hussain. Forged documentary evidence like receipts of school fees had been produced. The names of all three daughters were of Hindu origin whereas the applicant herself stated that she was Muslim and the Respondent had converted to Islam and performed Nikaah with her. The Applicant was a scheming lady of loose character who had been caught by the police for immoral flesh trade. The news regarding the same was also published in the newspapers on 24 March 2001 much before the alleged marriage on 24.10.2002 and Case Crime Number 18 of 2001 under section 3 (1) 5/7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1986 had been registered and Charge sheet had been filed against her and other accused in the competent court. A certified copy of the FIR and also the news item published in the newspapers were filed along with the objections by the Respondent. The Respondent was never named Abbas Hussain, Khun Khun and he had never converted to Islam. The Applicant and her father were used to extorting money from people, On the basis of threats to lodge false cases against them. The Applicant had also ment

              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