2024 Supreme(Online)(CG) 3993
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No.
238
of 201
6
Reserved on :
07
.0
3 .2024
Delivered on :
28.03.2024
1.
Ku. Tamanna D/o Krishna Gond, aged about 2 ½ months, Minor
through Natural Guardian Mother namely Dineshwari W/o Krishan
Gond R/o Lokhan, P.S. Kukdur, Tahsil Pandariya, Civil and Revenue
District Kabirdham, C.G.
2.
Dineshwari Bai W/o Krishan Gond, aged about 26 years, Occupation-
not known, R/o Lokhan, police station Kukdur, Tahsil Pandariya, Civil
and Revenue District-Kabirdham, C.G.
------Applicants
VERSUS
•
Krishna S/o Jai Singh Gond, aged about 35 years, Occupation-
Agriculturist and Rajmistri, R/o Kukdur, Police Station- Kukdur, Tahsil
Pandariya, District Kabirdham, C.G.
-------Non-applicant
For Applicant : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Non-applicant : None.
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
C.A.V.
Maintenance can only be granted to a legally wedded wife, as specified in Section 125 of CrPC.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Legally Wedded Wife - The court rejected the maintenance claim of applicant no. 2, observing that she is not a legally wedded wife of the respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The revision was filed against the order of the Family Court, which allowed maintenance for applicant no. 1 (child) but rejected the maintenance claim of applicant no. 2, stating that she is not the legally wedded wife of the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that applicant no. 2's claim of being the legally wedded wife was not substantiated, and therefore rejected her maintenance claim. The court also upheld the maintenance amount awarded to applicant no. 1.
Issues: The main issue was whether applicant no. 2 could be considered the legally wedded wife of the respondent and entitled to maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 125 of CrPC, which specifies that maintenance can only be granted to a legally wedded wife. It also considered the conditions for a Hindu marriage under Sections 5 and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition in part, modifying the impugned order to award maintenance of ₹1500 per month to applicant no. 1 from the date of application, while rejecting the maintenance claim of applicant no. 2.
ORDER
1. This revision is filed against the order dated 15.10.2015 challenging the order passed by learned Family Court, Kabirdham in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 337/2014, whereby learned Family Court allowed the application filed under Section 125 of CrPC by the applicants, in part while allowing it with respect to applicant No. 1 (child) and awarding ₹ 1500/- per month as maintenance and rejected the maintenance claim of applicant no. 2 observing that applicant No. 2 is not legally wedded wife of respondent.
2. Learned counsel for applicants submits that applicant no. 2 and the respondent lived as husband and wife and after some time respondent ousted the applicant no. 2 from his house and from their relationship applicant no. 1 was born. As the applicant no. 2 and respondent resided together as husband and wife, the status of applicant no. 2 was wife of respondent. Learned Family Court considering that no order of divorce is passed in favour of applicant no. 2 from her earlier husband has rejected her claim observing that applicant no. 2 is not a legally wedded wife of respondent. He also contended that the amount of maintenance awarded to applicant no. 1 is also very meagre. Learned Family Court has not taken note of the fact of age of applicant No. 1 on the date of filing of application to be 2 ½ months and in such a tender age more expenditure is required for taking care of the newly born child towards medical as also towards special diet and therefore while setting aside the order passed by learned Family Court the amount of maintenance awarded in favour of applicant no. 1 be enhanced and amount of maintenance to applicant no. 2 be also awarded. 3. No one appeared on behalf of respondent. On the last date of hearing ie. 23.02.2024 as also on 12.05.2016 also there was no appearance on behalf of respondent.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and also perused the record.
5. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for applicants with respect to claim of applicant no. 2, I have perused the record. Perusal of application filed under Section 125 of CrPC would show that the applicant in the application has pleaded that when applicant no. 2 was going along with respondent on a motorcycle, suddenly respondent stopped the motorcycle, caught her hand, forcefully taken under the bridge and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter performed marriage with her in a temple and accepting her to be his wife. Since then continuously established physical relationship with her due to which she became pregnant and gave birth to applicant No. 1. In evidence before the Family Court in the affidavit filed under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, similar statement is pleaded. However, in cross- examination, applicant No. 2 stated that when she was being taken down the bridge she has not screamed, however later on she stated that she screamed and shouted however there was no one present to come to rescue her. She further stated that after committing sexual intercourse with her, they have not performed marriage and they return back to their home. It is also stated that thereafter respondent continuously used to visit her house and established physical relation with her.
6. From the aforementioned statement of applicant no. 2 in her cross- examination, it appears that there is contradiction in the pleadings, facts pleaded as also her evidence before the Court. In further cross- examination, the victim stated that when she was carrying pregnancy of four months, respondent took her along with him to Kukdur where she resided for two months and returned back. This fact is not pleaded in the application under Section 125 of CrPC seeking maintenance. In cross-examination, applicant No. 2 has further stated that she was earlier married to one Jagjivan who was paying maintenance amount as Rs. 2000/- per month. Jagjivan stopped paying the amount of maintenance since last about a year. There is further statement that the ma