IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Prem Narayan Singh, J.
Kewalsingh v. Durgabai & Another
Criminal Revisions No. 726 of 2017 and 754 of 2017: against the order dated 13.5.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajgarh in Miscellaneous Judicial Case (Criminal) No. 230/2015; Decided on 11.3.2024
(1) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 125 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- Ss. 5 and 11 -- “wife” -- petitioner minor at time of her first marriage -- divorced as per customs -- then married respondent -- condition mentioned in sub-section (iii) of S. 5 pertaining to age of bride not mentioned in S. 11 -- first marriage of petitioner/wife not void -- marriage by custom of Hindu Saptpadi cannot be dissolved by a rajinama/panchnama -- woman entitled to get maintenance from second husband only when first marriage has been declared either null and void or she has obtained divorce decree from first husband -- petitioner/wife could not file any proof of getting divorce from first husband -- not entitled to get maintenance from second husband/respondent -- nevertheless, she has liberty to avail other remedies such as seeking compensation u/s. 22 of Domestic Violence Act. 2005 Lawsuit (SC) 466 followed. 2023 (2) JLJ 581 = 2023 (2) Lawsuit (MP) 223, 2023 Lawsuit (MP) 470 and 2023 (4) JLJ 413 = 2023 Lawsuit (MP) 533 relied on. 2004 (4) MPLJ 455, Criminal Revision No. 41 of 2006 decided on 20.1.2017, (2014) 1 SCC 188 and AIR 2018 SC 5128 distinguished. [Paras 10 to 12 & 19]
(2) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 125 -- enhancement of maintenance -- only Rs. 4,000/- per month demanded for maintenance in main application -- looking to income of respondent, maintenance cannot be enhanced because it has been awarded from date of filing of application -- however, petitioner at liberty to file appropriate petition u/s. 127. [Para 20]
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 125 & fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 & /kkjk 5 rFkk 11 & ^^iRuh** & ;kfpuh vius çFke fookg ds le; vçkIro; & :fढ+;ksa ds vuqlkj fookg&foPNsn gqvk & fQj çR;FkhZ ls fookg gqvk & /kkjk 5 dh mi/kkjk ¼3½ esa mfYyf[kr o/kq dh o; ls lacaf/kr 'krZ /kkjk 11 esa mfYyf[kr ugha & ;kfpuh@iRuh dk çFke fookg 'kwU; ugha & fganw lIrinh dh :fढ ls gqvk fookg jkthukek@iapukek }kjk fo?kfVr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & L=h f}rh; ifr ls Hkj.kiks"k.k ikus dh dsoy rc gdnkj tc çFke fookg ;k rks v—r vkSj 'kwU; ?kksf"kr dj fn;k x;k gks] vFkok mlus çFke ifr ls fookg&foPNsn dh fMØh vfHkçkIr dj yh gks & ;kfpuh@iRuh çFke ifr ls fookg&foPNsn dk dksbZ lcwr çLrqr ugha dj ldh & f}rh; ifr@çR;FkhZ ls Hkj.kiks"k.k ikus dh gdnkj ugha & rFkkfi] mls ?kjsyw fgalk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 22 ds v/khu çfrdj dh bZIlk djus tSls vU; mipkjksa dk ykHk ysus dh Lora=rk gSA 2005 y‚lwV ¼,llh½ 466 vuqlfjrA 2023 ¼2½ ts,yts 581 % 2023 ¼2½ y‚lwV ¼,eih½ 223] 2023 y‚lwV ¼,eih½ 470 rFkk 2023 ¼4½ ts,yts 413 % 2023 y‚lwV ¼,eih½ 533 voyafcrA 2004 ¼4½ ,eih,yts 455] nkafMd iqujh{k.k Ø- 41 lu~ 2006 fu.khZr fnukad 20-1-2017] ¼2014½ 1 ,llhlh 188 rFkk ,vkbvkj 2018 ,llh 5128 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 10 ls 12 ,oa 19½
¼2½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 125 & Hkj.kiks"k.k esa o`f) & eq[; vkosnu esa Hkj.kiks"k.k ds fy, :i;s 4-000@& çfrekl gh ek¡xs x, & çR;FkhZ dh vk; –f"Vxr j[krs gq,] Hkj.kiks"k.k esa o`f) ugha dh tk ldrh D;ksafd og vkosnu çLrqr fd, tkus ds fnukad ls vf/kfu.khZr fd;k x;k gS & rFkkfi] ;kfpuh /kkjk 127 ds v/khu leqfpr vthZ çLrqr djus ds fy, Lora= gSA ¼iSjk 20½
ORDER
With the consent of the parties heard finally.
1. This order shall govern the disposal of these criminal revisions as they are arisen out of same order dated 13.5.2017 passed in Miscellaneous Judicial Case (Criminal) No. 230/2015 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District-Rajgarh. Hence, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.
2. These criminal revisions have been filed by the petitioners under section 19(4) of Family Court Act, 1984 read with section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.5.2017, passed in MJC(Cri) No.230/2015, by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District-Rajgarh (Biaora) whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C on the ground that applicant/wife has failed to prove that she being the legal wife of the respondent/husband, is liable to receive the maintenance. Whereas the maintenance of Rs.4,000/- was awarded to petitioner No. 2/Chanchal per month from the date of filing of application. Further, the wife-Durga Bai and daughter-Chanchal will be addressed as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 while husband-Keval Singh will be addressed as respondent.
3. The Criminal Revision No. 754/2017 has been filed by Durga Bai/petitioner No. 1 for awarding the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- for her and enhancing the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- from Rs.4,000/- to petitioner No. 2, while the Criminal Revision No. 726/2017 has been filed by respondent/Keval Singh to set aside the order of maintenance in favour of his daughter/petitioner No.2. It is also worth mentioning that in Criminal Revision No. 754/2017, no one appeared on behalf of respondent/Keval Singh today, hence, revision petition No. 754/2017 is decided in non-appearance of respondent/Keval Singh.
4. The facts in brief are that, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent was solemnized as per Hindu Rituals in the year 2009. After conjugal relation between both, baby Chanchal was born from their wedlock. This marriage was second marriage for both petitioner No.1/Durga Bai and respondent/Keval Singh. Previously, marriage was solemnized between Durga Bai and Bhagwan Singh resident of Village Lalpuria, but Bhagwan Singh consummated second marriage and abandoned Durgabai. As per custom and rituals of society, Bhagwan Singh gave divorce. After getting divorce from Bhagwan Singh, the petitioner No. 1/Durgabai did second marriage with Keval Singh/respondent. Thereafter, the parents of respondent/Keval Singh taunted Durgabai with regard to demand of dowry and Keval Singh himself used to beat her after getting liquor. Owing to cruel treatment by respondent, petitioner was compelled to leave the house and from April, 2015, she was residing in her brother’s house in Rajgarh. The petitioner No. 1 is only a homemaker and is an unemployed lady, therefore, she has filed application under section 125 of Cr.P.C for maintenance which has been dismissed by the Family Court, therefore, this revision has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial Court has not considered all aspects of the case and not appreciated the evidence available on record. The petitioner No. 1 is an uneducated lady. From April 2015, she was residing at her brother’s house in Rajgarh alongwith her 4 years old child/petitioner No. 2. He also submits that the petitioner No. 1 is liable to get maintenance from respondent, being a wife and as she is compelled by respondent to live separately because of mental and physical cruelty. The respondent is owner of transport vehicle and also having income from agriculture. It is further expostulated that since petitioner No. 1 has obtained divorce from her earlier husband as per norms of society, she cannot be treated as illegitimate wife of respondent/Keval Singh. It is contended that at the time of marriage between Durgabai and Bhagwan Singh (previous husband), Durgabai was minor. Hence, her marriage was void
A second marriage is void if the first is not dissolved; thus, a second wife cannot claim maintenance unless legally recognized under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
`(1) Only a legally wedded wife can claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.(2) Decree of divorce can only be granted by Court and divorce by agreement is not valid in eyes of law.
Once such presumption of a lawful marriage commenced to operate in favour of a marriage which has taken place in fact, such a presumption alone would be good enough to entitle the wife to maintain.
Maintenance can be granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. based on a marriage-like relationship, without strict proof of marriage; primary focus is on neglect and economic capabilities.
A husband must ensure his wife’s financial support and maintain her standard of living unless he proves his inability to earn, as emphasized under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the Domestic Violence Act.
Wife entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC where husband fails to prove adultery or unjust refusal to cohabit; award upheld based on evidence of husband's business/land income contra labour ....
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.