Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 280 (GAU)

POBITRO DUTTA @ MRIDUL DUTTA v. MONIKA DUTTA

2018-02-15

HITESH KUMAR SARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER : 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr.PC seeking quashment of the judgment and order, dated 21.11.2016, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Criminal Revision No. 15/2016, arising out of Misc. Case No. 87/2012, dismissing the revision petition filed by the present petitioner and affirming the judgment and order, dated 03.03.2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Titabar in Misc. Case No. 87/2012 under Section 125 of the Cr.PC. 2. Heard Ms. M. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. In a proceeding under Sections 397/401 of the Cr.PC, this Court is to see the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order/judgment. 4. In the instant case, the proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.PC was initiated by the sole respondent, as petitioner, against the present petitioner as the opposite party, claiming monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 5,000/- for herself on the ground that she was married to the present petitioner on 23.04.2009 as per Hindu custom and thereafter she was subjected to torture and was driven out of his house. Since then, she has been living separately, taking refuge at her parental house and has not been provided any maintenance by the present petitioner. 5. The present petitioner, as opposite party, to the aforesaid maintenance proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.PC filed his written statement denying the allegations made by the present respondent as 1st party in her petition under Section 125 of the Cr.PC. Although in such written statement, he admitted that he cohabited with the respondent/1st party, there is also evidence on record that the present respondent/1st party stayed in the house of the present petitioner/opposite party for about 2 years. After recording evidence of the 1st party and her witnesses as well as the opposite party/present petitioner and his witnesses, the learned trial court, in the conclusion of the trial, passed the judgment and order, referred to above, granting monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 4,000/- to the present respondent/1st party. 6. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the only ground that the present respondent/1st party is not the wife of the present petitioner/opposite party and she forced her entry to his house. 4,000/- to the present respondent/1st party. 6. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the only ground that the present respondent/1st party is not the wife of the present petitioner/opposite party and she forced her entry to his house. It has been submitted that the marriage has not been proved between the parties, and therefore, the present respondent/1st party is not entitled to maintenance as wife of the present petitioner/opposite party. 7. I have meticulously examined the judgment and thoroughly heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. There is an admission in the deposition of the DW1, i.e., the present petitioner himself, that he has admitted in his written statement that he cohabited with the present respondent. The evidence, as a whole, makes it appear that he cohabited with the respondent/1st party in his house which amply speaks of his relationship with the present respondent/1st party. 8. The learned trial court has considered the marriage as required to be established in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.PC to arrive at the conclusion. He has referred to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Praya Dixit and Anr., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 675. In the said decision, the Honble Supreme Court has held that the validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.PC is to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties. The standard of proof of marriage in such proceeding is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under Section 494 of the IPC. 9. In the instant case, it has been established by admitted fact that the present petitioner lived with the present respondent and cohabited. 10. In the background of such facts, in the considered view of this Court, taking refuge of the decision, referred to above, this Court is of the view that the relationship as husband and wife, as required to be established under Section 125 of the Cr.PC, is established in the instant case. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner fails. 11. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner fails. 11. There is no other issues raised before this Court questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment rendered by the learned trial court as well as by the revisional court of the learned Sessions Judge. 12. That being so, there is no merit in the petition and accordingly the same is disposed of.