Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 299 (HP)

Gurvinder Kaur v. Prittam Singh Rana

2023-05-24

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Aggrieved against order dated 11.10.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Family Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Cr.M.A. No. 345-D/IV of 2019, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition. 2. Petitioner approached the learned Family Court with an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance from the respondent on the premise that she was legally wedded wife of respondent. Their marriage was solemnised on 20th July, 2018 and was further registered on 23.7.2018. Petitioner alleged her neglect at the hands of respondent. As per the petitioner, she did not have any independent source of income and was totally dependent upon the respondent. 3. Petitioner also filed an additional application for grant of interim maintenance during the pendency of the petition. 4. Respondent contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was only a farce. As per respondent, petitioner had been working as domestic help in the house of respondent since 2014. No ceremony or ritual had taken place for marriage of the parties as is required under the Hindu Law. In order to help the petitioner, respondent had shown her as his wife in the service records and she was also his nominee for the purpose of family pension etc. The factum of registration of marriage of the parties had not been denied by the respondent, however, it was explained that the formality was done only with a purpose to help the petitioner. It had further been submitted that immediately after registration of marriage the parties had executed a customary divorce/release deed on 26.07.2028. A petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was also filed by the parties, but later the petitioner had resiled from making a statement in the said petition. Respondent further submitted that he had paid a sum of Rs.Five Lacs to petitioner for the purpose of discharge of her loan liability at the time of execution of deed of customary divorce/release on 26.07.2018. He had further paid a sum of Rs.two lacs to the petitioner at the time when the petition for mutual divorce was filed. Respondent also claimed to have spent about Rs. fifty lacs for purchasing separate vehicles for son of petitioner and the petitioner and also for renovation of her house. He had further paid a sum of Rs.two lacs to the petitioner at the time when the petition for mutual divorce was filed. Respondent also claimed to have spent about Rs. fifty lacs for purchasing separate vehicles for son of petitioner and the petitioner and also for renovation of her house. He also claimed to have made entire expenditure of marriage of the daughter of petitioner. 5. Respondent alleged that after registration of marriage with petitioner, he came to know that petitioner was not of good character and was operating a sex racket. When he confronted the petitioner with such facts, he suffered hostility at the hands of the petitioner. Petition for maintenance filed by the petitioner is also stated to be result of her anger. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 7. Evidently, respondent did not dispute before the learned Family Court the factum of registration of his marriage with the petitioner on 20.07.2018. Respondent did not even deny the genuineness or authenticity of certificate of marriage issued by the Registrar of Marriages on 23.07.2018. Rather, the respondent admitted that he was a retired Army personnel and had nominated the petitioner as his nominee for the purpose of receipt of family pension and other service benefits after the death of respondent. Another fact, which the respondent disclosed was the filing of petition for dissolution of his marriage with the petitioner by way of mutual consent. He had also come up with a plea that he along with the petitioner had executed a customary divorce/release deed on 26th July, 2018. Respondent has further alleged to have spent a huge sum of money on petitioner and her family members. It was the respondent, who also disclosed in the reply that the petitioner had been working for him as domestic help since 2014. 8. Noticeably, the entire thrust of defence raised on behalf of the respondent was on the fact that the ceremonies as required for solemnization of marriage between the Hindus had not taken place, therefore, there was no legal and valid marriage between the parties. On the strength of such assertion, respondent had contested the right of petitioner to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. As per the respondent, petitioner was not his legally wedded wife. 9. On the strength of such assertion, respondent had contested the right of petitioner to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. As per the respondent, petitioner was not his legally wedded wife. 9. Learned trial Court has rejected the application for grant of interim maintenance to the petitioner only on the ground that the proof of solemnization of marriage ceremonies was missing in the case and the allegation that petitioner was legally wedded wife of respondent was yet to be proved. 10. Indisputably, the material available on record clearly suggested existence of marital relationship between the parties. The respondent has not challenged his marriage with the petitioner before any court of law. The respondent has not even sought the cancellation of registration of his marriage with the petitioner. Nothing has been produced on record to suggest that the respondent has already taken steps for withdrawing the name of petitioner as his nominee for the purpose of grant of pensionary and other service benefits after his death. In this view of the matter, there was sufficient material before the learned Family Court in favour of presumption of marriage between the parties. Except for the version of respondent regarding non-performance of rituals required in Hindu marriage, there was nothing on record to infer against the marriage between the parties. On such assertion alone, learned Family Court was not right in dispelling the strong presumption of marriage between the parties. Learned Family Court was only at the stage of deciding application for interim maintenance. In the given facts of the case, it was totally unjustified on the part of the Family Court to have denied benefit of interim maintenance in favour of petitioner. Learned Family Court proceeded on the premise as the respondent had succeeded in proving that the petitioner was not his legally wedded wife. 11. The factual position that had emerged before the learned Family Court was that the petitioner admittedly was known to respondent since 2014 and hence, a long-standing acquaintance between both was established that had culminated in registration of their marriage before the Registrar of Marriages. Respondent had nominated the petitioner as his nominee in the records of his employer. Respondent himself admitted to have spent more than Rs. Seventy lacs on petitioner. Respondent had nominated the petitioner as his nominee in the records of his employer. Respondent himself admitted to have spent more than Rs. Seventy lacs on petitioner. That being so, there was sufficient material before the learned Family Court to infer existence of marital relation between the parties and atleast the intent of respondent to keep petitioner as his wife was clearly established. 12. In Kamla and others vs. M.R. Mohan Kumar, (2019)1 SCC 491, it has been observed as under:- 15. Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., such strict standard of proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy. In Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit (1999) 7 SCC 675 , this Court held that “27..........the standard of proof of marriage in a Section 125 proceeding is not as strict as is required in a trial for an offence under Section 494 IPC. The learned Judges explained the reason for the aforesaid finding by holding that an order passed in an application under Section 125 does not really determine the rights and obligations of the parties as the section is enacted with a view to provide a summary remedy to neglected wives to obtain maintenance. The learned Judges held that maintenance cannot be denied where there was some evidence on which conclusions of living together could be reached.” When the parties live together as husband and wife, there is a presumption that they are legally married couple for claim of maintenance of wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Applying the well-settled principles, in the case in hand, appellant No.1 and the respondent were living together as husband and wife and also begotten two children. Appellant No.1 being the wife of the respondent, she and the children appellants No.2 and 3 would be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 13. In Pyla Matyalamma v. Pyla Suri Demudu, reported in 2011(12) SCC 189 , the Supreme Court has underlined the contours of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. as under:- “21. In Pyla Matyalamma v. Pyla Suri Demudu, reported in 2011(12) SCC 189 , the Supreme Court has underlined the contours of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. as under:- “21. It was still further laid down in the case of Sethu Rathinam vs. Barbara, (1970) 1 SCWR 589 that if there was affirmative evidence on the aforesaid points, the Magistrate would not enter into complicated questions of law as to the validity of the marriage according to the sacrament element or personal law and the like, which are questions for determination by the civil court. If the evidence led in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. raises a presumption that the applicant was the wife of the respondent, it would be sufficient for the Magistrate to pass an order granting maintenance under the proceeding. But if the husband wishes to impeach the validity of the marriage, he will have to bring a declaratory suit in the civil court where the whole questions may be gone into wherein he can contend that the marriage was not a valid marriage or was a fraud or coercion practiced upon him. 14. Keeping in view the fact situation and exposition of law as detailed above, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The object of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., is to prevent vagrancy. There was nothing before the learned Family Court to suggest that the petitioner was self-sufficient to maintain herself or that the respondent was not in a position to maintain her. 15. In the light of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the order dated 11.10.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Family Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Cr.M.A. No. 345-D/IV of 2019, is set aside. The learned Family Court is directed to reconsider and decided the application for interim maintenance filed by the petitioner in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Since, the matter is already quite old, learned Sessions Judge, Family Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, is directed to decide the application for interim maintenance on or before 30th June, 2023. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Family Court on 1st June, 2023. 16. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.