Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1692 (BOM)

Sangitabai v. Sandip

2014-07-31

V.M.DESHPANDE

body2014
JUDGMENT : V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. Heard Shri V.C. Patil, advocate holding for Shri V.D. Patnoorkar, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent. The applicant was required to file an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court at Aurangabad, since according to her grievance she was not maintained by her husband, the present respondent. The proceedings for maintenance initiated by the applicant were registered as Petition No. E475 of 2000. The basic fabric of the pleadings is that, on 12.4.2000 at Mauja Fardapur, Taluka Soygaon, District Aurangabad, the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnised in a simple ceremony. In the said marriage, the parents of the applicant gave Rs. 10,000/- cash to the respondent. According to the application, though for a period of one month she was nicely treated by the respondent and his family members, however, after the lapse of said period, they started showing their true colours. According to her, she was subjected to the cruelty on account of demand of Rs. 10,000/- from the parental house of the present applicant. Many a times, she was scolded that the applicant should commit suicide so that the respondent can perform second marriage. According to the application, in fact on 29.5.2000 she disclosed the atrocities committed on her from the phone of the respondent bearing No. 4109 to one Bhaskar Narayan Wagh, maternal uncle of the present applicant, who ultimately transmitted the said information to the mother of the present applicant, resultantly the mother came at Fardapur and made inquiry about the atrocious act committed by the respondent and his family members to her daughter. However, the respondent and his family did not budge and they directed that they can take their daughter back, and accordingly, the mother took the applicant and since then she was residing with her parents. With these basic pleadings, the applicant claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. 2. On being summoned, the respondent put his appearance and filed his written statement. The basic assertion on the part of the applicant that there was a marriage between her and the respondent on 12.4.2000 is stoutly denied by the respondent. He specifically asserted that at no point of time any marriage took place between the applicant and him. 3. 2. On being summoned, the respondent put his appearance and filed his written statement. The basic assertion on the part of the applicant that there was a marriage between her and the respondent on 12.4.2000 is stoutly denied by the respondent. He specifically asserted that at no point of time any marriage took place between the applicant and him. 3. No doubt, the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are summary in nature and it is not expected from the court to make a detailed inquiry about the validity of the marriage, however, at the same time, the basic thing the applicant is required to establish before the court for claiming maintenance is that she is the wife of the person from whom she is claiming the maintenance. In the present case, though the applicant has claimed that about 100 to 200 persons attended the marriage ceremony, the applicant failed to adduce the evidence of any person who attended the said marriage. Further, the learned Judge of the Family Court has also noticed that even the applicant has failed to file any marriage invitation card just to point out prima facie that there was a marriage between the parties. 4. The learned counsel in order to buttress his point that, since there is a basic statement in her application that she is married to the respondent, that by itself is sufficient to claim maintenance, relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Nirmalbai W/o. Uttam Dhanai v. Uttam S/o. Rambhau Dhanai and anr., reported in 2001 (3) Mh.L.J. 131 . However, to me, the dictum of said reported case is not applicable in the given set of facts to the present case. As observed by me, the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being summary in nature, the detailed inquiry of the marriage cannot be gone into, however, in the reported case, there was sufficient evidence on record to show that there were relations between Nirmalbai and Uttam for a considerable period, and therefore, the inference was drawn about their marriage in view of their long union with each other. Even such evidence is also wanting in the present case. Therefore, I am afraid that the said case is helpful to the present applicant. 5. Even such evidence is also wanting in the present case. Therefore, I am afraid that the said case is helpful to the present applicant. 5. During the course of the argument, the learned counsel pointed out that during the pendency of the present Revision Application, an application for interim maintenance was also filed before this court bearing Criminal Application No. 1928 of 2001 and along with the said application, a Xerox copy of one marriage card was attached and this court on 2.7.2008 was pleased to allow the said application and was pleased to direct the respondent to pay the maintenance amount. The interim order passed by this court is hardly helpful for the final disposal of the present Revision. The Revision applicant could have filed the application before this court pointing out the facts and circumstances as to why at the relevant time the applicant failed to produce the said marriage card. In absence of any prayer with the cogent reason, the Xerox copy of the said marriage card cannot be considered at the time of final disposal. 6. The learned Judge of the Family Court has considered the case from all angles, though the learned Judge tried to find out something in favour of the applicant in respect of her marriage with the respondent, however, in absence of any evidence whatsoever in nature, the learned Judge, was right in rejecting the claim of the applicant. I see no reason to interfere with the reasoning and view taken by the learned Judge of the Family Court. Hence, the present Revision is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.