Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 914 (MP)

Jasodabai v. Bhagwan singh

2009-08-03

N.K.MODY

body2009
JUDGMENT : Beingaggrieved by the order dated 16-4-2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Shajapur in Criminal Revision No. 22/2008 whereby the orderdated 27-12-2007 passed by JMFC, Sarangpur , in CaseNo. 4/2006 whereby the maintenance was awarded @ Rs .800/- per month was set aside, the present petition has been filed. 2.Short facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a petition under Section125 of Cr.PC for grant of maintenance on 13-1-2006 , wherein it was allegedthat the petitioner is the wife of respondent. It was alleged that petitioneris illiterate lady. It was alleged that the respondent is Teacher and themarriage of petitioner was solemnized with the respondent in her childhood. Itwas alleged that the petitioner was subjected to cruelty on account of demandof dowry. Further case of the petitioner was that petitioner was ousted fromthe matrimonial house before 8 years of filing of the petition. It was alsoalleged that petitioner has performed second marriage with one Krishnabai . It was prayed that the petition filed by thepetitioner be allowed and the maintenance be awarded @ Rs .4,000/- per month. The application was contested by the respondent on variousgrounds and also on the ground that the petitioner is not the wedded wife ofthe respondent and marriage of the respondent never took place with thepetitioner. So far as allegation made in the petition that the respondent hasentered into second marriage with Krishnabai isconcerned, it was replied that the marriage of the respondent has not takenplace with Krishnabai . It was prayed that petitionfiled by the petitioner be dismissed. After holding summary enquiry learnedTrial Court allowed the petition and awarded maintenance @ Rs .800/- per month to petitioner against which revision petition was filed by therespondent. After hearing both the parlies , learned Revisional Court allowed therevision petition filed by the respondent and set aside the order passed bylearned Trial Court whereby maintenance was awarded @ Rs .800/- per month to the petitioner, against which the present petition has beenfiled. 3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that theimpugned order passed by learned Revisional Court is illegal and deserves to be set aside. Itis submitted that since jurisdiction of Revisional Court was limited and after due appreciation of evidence learned Trial Courtcame to the conclusion that petitioner is entitled for maintenance and awardedmaintenance @ Rs . 3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that theimpugned order passed by learned Revisional Court is illegal and deserves to be set aside. Itis submitted that since jurisdiction of Revisional Court was limited and after due appreciation of evidence learned Trial Courtcame to the conclusion that petitioner is entitled for maintenance and awardedmaintenance @ Rs . 800/- per month, therefore, whileexercising the revisional jurisdiction learnedSessions Court exceeded its jurisdiction in setting-aside the findings oflearned Trial Court. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit , 2000 Cri.LJ (SC) 1, wherein it has held that in a maintenanceproceedings, strict proof is not required, it is sufficient, if claimant primafacie satisfies the Court that claimant and her husband lived as husband andwife, performance of essential ceremonies need not also be proved. 4.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that enough evidence is on record toprove that the marriage was solemnized between the parties. It is submittedthat the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned orderpassed by learned Revisional Court be set aside. 5.Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that important witnesses of marriagecould have been the parents of petitioner but none of them were examined. It issubmitted that there is sufficient evidence on record on the basis of which itcan be said that the marriage between the parties was not solemnized. It issubmitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no illegality hasbeen committed by learned Revisional Court in setting aside the order passed by learnedTrial Court which can be corrected by this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. It is submitted that the petitionfiled by the petitioner has no merits and be dismissed. 6.From perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner has filed the documents Exhs . P-1 to P-3. Exhs . P-1to P-2 are the documents relating to ancestralagricultural property of the family of respondent, in which respondent is alsoone of the co-owner. Exh . P-3 is salary certificate dated 5-10-2007 according to which respondent isgetting salary of Rs . 3,500/- per month. To prove thecase, Jasodabai (P.W. 1) examined herself, Karansingh (P.W. 2), Umraosingh (P.W. 3), Pratapsingh (P.W. 4). While respondent hasexamined himself and also examined Nirbhaysingh (D.W. 2), Brajmohan (D.W. 3) and Devilal (D.W. 4). Exh . P-3 is salary certificate dated 5-10-2007 according to which respondent isgetting salary of Rs . 3,500/- per month. To prove thecase, Jasodabai (P.W. 1) examined herself, Karansingh (P.W. 2), Umraosingh (P.W. 3), Pratapsingh (P.W. 4). While respondent hasexamined himself and also examined Nirbhaysingh (D.W. 2), Brajmohan (D.W. 3) and Devilal (D.W. 4). Jasodabai (P.W. 1) elaborately has statedplace of marriage and the other circumstances in which marriage was solemnized.This itself goes to show that the marriage wasperformed between the parties. Apart from this, statement of petitioner iselaborately corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses. There is nothingon record to show why the petitioner has falsely alleging herself as weddedwife of the respondent. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court Dwarika Prasad Satpathy (supra), this Courlprima facie is satisfied thatpetitioner is the wedded wife of the respondent for the purpose of claim ofmaintenance. In view of this, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowedand the impugned order passed by learned Revisional Court whereby the order passed by learned Trial Court was set aside, is setaside and the order passed by learned Trial Court is restored with a furtherdirection to respondent to pay the current maintenance regularly and also topay the arrears of maintenance within a period of three months. In case ofdefault, the petitioner shall be at liberty to recover the entire amountforthwith. 7.With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed of. C.C.as per rules.