Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 849 (MP)

Akti Bai v. Bulku Lal Baghel

1996-09-23

RAJEEV GUPTA

body1996
JUDGMENT Rajeev Gupta, J. 1. Petitioner Smt. Akti Bai, who claims herself to be wife of non-petitioner Bulku Lal Baghel, has filed this revision petition against the order dated 14.2.1992, passed by Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Revision No. 175/90, whereby the order dated 25.6.1990, passed by J.M.F.C, Raipur in M.Cr.C. No. 7/89, was set aside. 2. Petitioner Smt. Akti Bai initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 125, Cr.P.C., against her husband, non-petitioner Bulku Lal Baghel, for grant of maintenance. Non-petitioner Bulku Lal Baghel, in his reply to the above application, denied the fact of the alleged marriage between him and petitioner Smt. Akti Bai. The petitioner examined Akti Bai (AW/1), Shakun Bai (AW/2), Tetki Bai (AW/3) and Keshavram (AW/4), in support of her case. 3. Non-petitioner Bulku Lal Baghel on the other hand examined Kanhaiya Lal (NAW/1), Bulku Lal Banghel (NAW/2), Sukhdev Baghel (NAW/3), Lekhanlal Satnami (NAW/4), Gauri Bai (NAW/5), Rukhmani Bai (NAW/6), Sukari Bai (NAW/7) and Mansukh (NAW/8). 4. The Trial Court, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, held : (i) that the marriage between petitioner Smt. Akti Bai and Bulku Lal , Baghel was proved; (ii) that, non-petitioner Bulku Lal Baghel had neglected to maintain his wife, petitioner Smt. Akti Bai; and (iii) that, the admission of the non-petitioner that he is living with one Gauri Bai furnishes sufficient ground for petitioner/wife Akti Bai to live separately and claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125, of the Cr.P.C. On the above findings, the Trial Court found petitioner/wife Akti Bai entitled to grant of maintenance and, therefore, granted her maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month/ and the same was made payable from the date of the application, which was filed on 25.2.1988. 5. Non-petitioner Bulku Bai Baghel, being aggrieved of the above grant of maintenance, filed a revision before the Court of Sessions. The revisional Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, held that the evidence led by the non-petitioner/wife was not sufficient for establishing the fact of her marriage with non-petitioner Balku Lal Baghel. On the above finding, the Re-visional Court set aside the Trial Court's order, granting maintenance to the non-petitioner/wife, and dismissed petitioner Smt. Akti Bai's application, filed under Section 125, Cr.P.C. 6. Mr. On the above finding, the Re-visional Court set aside the Trial Court's order, granting maintenance to the non-petitioner/wife, and dismissed petitioner Smt. Akti Bai's application, filed under Section 125, Cr.P.C. 6. Mr. Pandey, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, referring to para 4 of Tetki Bai, (AW/3), contended that the Revisional Court had gone wrong in setting aside the Trial Court's order, which was based on evidence on record. 7. On perusing the statement of Tetki Bai (AW/3), it is found that in para 4, of her cross-examination, she had categorically stated that the marriage between petitioner Smt. Akti Bai and non-petitioner Bulku Lal Baghel was performed according to 'Chattisgarh customs', including the Thera Ceremony'. From the above evidence and the evidence contained in the statement of Akti Bai (AW/ 1) and Shakun Bai (AW/2), it is fully established that the marriage of petitioner Smt. Akti Bai was performed with the non-petitioner as per the rituals. It appears that the Revisional Court, while holding that the fact of petitioner's marriage with non-petitioner Bulku Lal Baghel was not established has over-looked the effect of above material evidence contained in para 4 of Tetki Bai (AW/3). As the above finding was recorded without considering the material evidence, the same is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 8. On due consideration of the evidence led in the case, in its entirety, and the findings recorded by the Trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court had rightly held petitioner/wife Smt. Akti Bai entitled to grant of maintenance from non-petitioner Bulku Lal Baghel. The amount of maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month granted by the Trial Court, in the context of the present price index and the proved income of non-petitioner Bulku Lal Baghel, who is an Upper Division Clerk in the Irrigation Department, does not appear to be unreasonable or excessive, in any manner. Similarly, the direction given by the Trial Court making the amount of maintenance payable from the date of the application also does not call for any interference by this Court. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition, filed by petitioner Smt. Akti Bai, is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.2.1992, passed by Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Raipur in Cr.R. No. 175/90 is hereby set aside. The order dated 25.6.1990, passed by J.M.F.C. Raipur in M.Cr. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition, filed by petitioner Smt. Akti Bai, is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.2.1992, passed by Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Raipur in Cr.R. No. 175/90 is hereby set aside. The order dated 25.6.1990, passed by J.M.F.C. Raipur in M.Cr. Case No. 7/89, directing non-petitioner Bulku Lal Baghel to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- per month, as maintenance to petitioner/wife Smt. Akti Bai from the date of the application, which was filed on 25.2.1988, is restored.