Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1221 (GAU)

SABITA DEKA v. BABUL DEKA

2017-09-04

HITESH KUMAR SARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Hitesh Kumar Sarma, J. This Criminal Revision Petition before this court is challenging the legality and propriety of the judgment and order, dated 17.9.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Criminal Revision No. 71/2007, setting aside the judgment and order, dated 27.3.2007, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rangia, in Case No. 50M/2006, under Section 125 Cr.PC, granting monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,000/- to the present petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. T.H. Hazariak, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent. This is an old pending Criminal Revision Petition of the year 2007. Therefore, it has been taken up for disposal on merit on perusal of the evidence recorded by the learned trial court as well as on perusal of the judgments of the learned courts below including the Revision Petition and the grounds taken therein. 3. A proceeding, under Section 125 Cr.PC, was initiated by the present petitioner, Sabita Deka, against the present respondent, Babul Deka, before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rangia, claiming monthly maintenance allowance from the respondent. According to her, on 30.3.2006, the respondent married her by executing a registered agreement at Guwahati, and, after the agreement was executed, he had put vermilion on her forehead accepting her as his wife in presence of village people, and thereafter, she was taken to his house. There, she stayed for 4 days, and after subjecting her to torture, the present respondent drove her out of his house on 4.4.2006, following which, she lodged an FIR with the Baihata Chariali Police Station vide Case No. 86/2006, under Section 498(A) IPC. The brother and sister of the present respondent threatened her not to come back to their house. Since then, the respondent has not been providing any maintenance allowance to her. 4. The respondent contested the proceeding before the learned trial court by filing written statement, denying the marriage and claiming that the present petitioner is not his wife and is not entitled to any maintenance allowance. 5. The learned trial court appears to have thoroughly discussed the evidence on record and found that there is a marriage agreement between both the parties. On the date of execution of the registered agreement itself, the respondent took her to his house after putting vermilion on her forehead, meaning thereby, he had accepted her as his wife from that day itself. On the date of execution of the registered agreement itself, the respondent took her to his house after putting vermilion on her forehead, meaning thereby, he had accepted her as his wife from that day itself. The present petitioner also claimed, before the learned trial court, that she stayed at the residence of the respondent as husband and wife for 4 days, and thereafter, she was driven out by the mother, brother and sister of the respondent. 6. In the defence evidence, it is found that the respondent himself, examined as DW1, admitted the execution of the marriage agreement between him and the present petitioner. Although he had taken a plea that his signature in the marriage agreement had been obtained forcibly. He has admitted that though his signature was taken forcibly without his consent, he had not filed any complaint anywhere. In his cross-examination, DW1 has admitted that there is no statement in the agreement that the marriage between them will take place subsequently. Therefore, it appears that from the date of execution of the agreement, he had accepted the present petitioner as his wife and, this fact is further substantiated by the fact that he had put vermilion on the forehead of the present petitioner, meaning thereby, that he had married her. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat & Others reported in (2005) 3 SCC 636 . He has referred to paragraph-13 of the said judgment specifically and submitted that the execution of the marriage agreement and putting vermilion on the forehead of the present petitioner by the respondent, the marriage procedure was followed, and as such, it is not necessary for the petitioner to prove further as to whether the said procedure was completed as per Hindu rites, in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.PC. 8. It is an admitted position that the proceeding before this court is under Section 125 Cr.PC. There is also no dispute to the effect that the respondent was a tutor of the present petitioner and they had developed love between them during that period, resulting in execution of the marriage agreement followed by putting vermilion on her forehead suggesting that he had accepted her as his wife. There is also no dispute to the effect that the respondent was a tutor of the present petitioner and they had developed love between them during that period, resulting in execution of the marriage agreement followed by putting vermilion on her forehead suggesting that he had accepted her as his wife. But, because of the resistance from the family members of the respondent she could not continue in the house of her in-laws for more than 4 days. She was driven out of the house of the respondent. 9. In the considered view of this court, the judgment passed by the learned trial court, on consideration of the evidence on record, appears to be inconformity with the required standard of proof of marriage in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.PC as the strict proof of marriage is not necessary in such proceeding. The learned revisional court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati, after thoroughly discussing the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that a marriage was not proved as per Hindu rites, as the parties are governed by Hindu laws. But, in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.PC, as stated above, strict proof of marriage is not necessary. 10. After perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, this court is of the considered view that the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rangia, is based on evidence on record and does not require any interference. Accordingly, the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup, in Criminal Revision No. 71/2007, is set aside. 11. Therefore, the revision petition is allowed. 12. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. 13. Send back the LCR along with the copy of this judgment.