Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 623 (MP)

Bhagwan Das v. Birpatiya @ Brahaspatiya

2017-05-04

ATUL SREEDHARAN

body2017
ORDER : Atul Sreedharan, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the instant revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Session Judge of Singrauli arsing from Criminal Appeal No.121/2010 vide order dated 6.1.2012, by which, the order passed by the Nyayadhikari of Gram Nyayalaya, Baidhen dated 05.07.2010 was affirmed. 2. By the said order, an amount of Rs. 700/- (Rupees Seven Hundred) per month was awarded to the respondent as maintenance. The only ground for challenge in this case is that the respondent allegedly is not the married wife of the petitioner as so stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that there are findings of two courts below which are concurrent and are against the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondents. This Court has gone through the evidence on record. The respondent has examined herself as PW-1 and has stated in her examination-in-chief that her marriage had taken place 10 years prior to her statement before the Court. She also states that she has four children from the said marriage, three of them were boys and one was a girl. However, all the four children had died. She also states that the petitioner herein had stopped maintaining her and used to physically harass her. In her cross-examination, she has denied the suggestions to the effect that before being married to the petitioner she was married elsewhere. PW-2 is the father of the respondent who is also stated that he had got his daughter married to the petitioner. In paragraph-2, he also substantiates the fact that she has four children of which three are boys and one is girl. He also states that on account of the death of the children there was a dispute between the petitioner and respondent. PW-3 is an important witness who is Vendanti Ram Dubey. He is supposed to be priest who had got the marriage between the respondent and petitioner solemnized. He has stated in the examination-in-chief that on 30.06.1999 he had solemnized the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. He states that he knows both the parties and the respondent stayed with the petitioner about 8 years. He is supposed to be priest who had got the marriage between the respondent and petitioner solemnized. He has stated in the examination-in-chief that on 30.06.1999 he had solemnized the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. He states that he knows both the parties and the respondent stayed with the petitioner about 8 years. He further states that a year before (before his statement in Court) the petitioner had got married to another woman on account which the respondent was staying with her father. In his cross-examination, nothing worthwhile to come out to show that the evidence is not worthy of reliance. PW-4 is Ramnandan who is the barber in the village. He has also stated in the examination-in-chief that he knows the respondent as the wife of the petitioner herein. He also states that the petitioner and the respondent had got married about 7 to 8 years before his statement in Court. He categorically states that the barat had come and the respondent was married to the petitioner in his presence. He also states that the witness No.3 was the priest in the said marriage. Again, in his cross-examination nothing worthwhile has come out in order to disbelieve the same. 3. On the other hand, the petitioner herein has been examined as defence witness no.1, his examination-in-chief is just of one line where he states that he does not know the respondent. Nothing else is stated in the examination-in-chief. Thereafter, in paras-2, 3 and 4 of the cross-examination, he has merely denied that he was ever married to the petitioner. DW-2 is one Abbas Ali who is bangle seller. This witness has been examined by the petitioner to show that the respondent was married elsewhere. In paragraph-2 of his examination-in-chief he says that the respondent was earlier married elsewhere but he does not know as to who she was married to. From the statement, it is apparent that there is no evidence besides the bald allegations that she was married elsewhere. No details with regard to that marriage has been given by the witness. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relief upon the two judgments. The first judgment is reported in 2006 (1) MHPT 39 (CG), Yogesh Chandra Sheel (Rai) v. Smt. Sandhya Rani Sheel and Others. The said order has been passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relief upon the two judgments. The first judgment is reported in 2006 (1) MHPT 39 (CG), Yogesh Chandra Sheel (Rai) v. Smt. Sandhya Rani Sheel and Others. The said order has been passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur. This was a case, where the husband/petitioner wanted to evade liability under section 125 of Cr.P.C. by building a parallel hypotheses that the respondent was not his legally wedded wife as she was already married elsewhere. It was also his case, like in the instant case, that there was no marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. However, the High Court has arrived at the finding that there was a marriage existing between the petitioner and the respondent in that case, on account of evidence relating to photographs of the marriage, school certificate of the children and letter etc. which were produced before the trial Court. As regard the allegations of being married earlier the High Court in paragraph-5 held that where the husband intends to dis-entitle the wife from receiving the maintenance on the ground that she has already married some other man, strict proof the earlier marriage is required and the husband has to satisfactory prove the subsistence of a legally and valid marriage with some other person particularly when section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice intended to protect the women and children. The said judgment, which has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner actually goes to aid the case of the respondent. The witness who was produced by the petitioner in order to prove the second marriage is completely unbelievable as he does not even state as to whom the respondent herein was married earlier too and how long they live together. He does not even state the date on which the marriage had solemnized between the respondent and the previous husband. The second judgment is of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 (2) MPHT 382 SC Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and others. He does not even state the date on which the marriage had solemnized between the respondent and the previous husband. The second judgment is of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 (2) MPHT 382 SC Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and others. In this said judgment, the Supreme Court has held that the expression "wife" has been used in section 125 of Cr.P.C. refers to only a legally wedded wife and that the marriage of a woman with a person having a living spouse is null and void and not voidable and that she was not entitled to the benefit of maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. However, here in this case there is a concurrent finding of two courts below that the petitioner herein has not been able to establish the previous marriage of the respondent with anyone else. On the other hand, the respondent has been able to prove by adducing the evidence of 4 witnesses to the effect that she was married to the petitioner for almost between 8 to 10 years and that she had four children from the said relationship. 5. Under the circumstances, this Court does not find anything perverse in the orders passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court in order to interfere in the order passed by the courts below by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. 6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.