Poona Bai @ Pan Bai & Ors. v. Rama Aharwal

(01/09/2015) The applicants have filed this Civil Revision challenging the order dated 25/10/2002 passed by 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Criminal Revision No.73/2002 thereby quahsing the order granting maintenance passed by the trial Court.

2. Brief facts of the case are that applicant No.1 has entered into marriage with respondent on 26/8/1989 as per Gandharv customs. Applicant No.1 has given birth to applicants No.2 to

4. The respondent kept the applicant with him for some time, but later on the relations between them have become stress and respondent starting harassing applicant No.1, both, physically and mentally. Applicant No.1, therefore, was constrained to leave the house of respondent along with applicants No.2 to 4. The applicants thereafter filed an application under Section125 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court at Damoh. Both the parties have adduced the evidence.

3. Learned trial Court after recording the evidence was pleased to pass an order of maintenance in favour of the applicants vide order dated 21/12/2001. Being aggrieved by the order passed by trial Court, the respondent has filed a revision before the 3rd Additional District Judge, Damoh. Learned revisional Court by the impugned order dated 25/10/2002 has set aside the order passed by the trial Court on the ground that applicant No.1 was not the legally wedded wife of respondent but she was kept by the respondent and, therefore, she is not entitled to get the maintenance. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have filed the present revision before this Court.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the revisional Court has erred in passing the impugned order dated 25/10/2002 thereby refusing to grant maintenance in favour of the applicants. He further submits that the revisional Court below has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. He has submitted that the applicant No.1 has produced ample evidence before the trial Court to prove their marriage, however, the same was not considered by the revisional Court. He relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chanmuniya Vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and another, (2011) 1 SCC 141 and has submitted that the "wife" includes even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonable long period of time and strict proof of marriage should not be precondition for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. On the basis of the said judgment, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that as the applicants and respondent are residing together for a considerable long period and she has given birth to respondents No.2 to 4 out of the same marriage, she is, therefore, certainly includes under the definition of "wife" and, therefore, she is entitled to get maintenance, however, revisional Court has committed an error in setting aside the order passed by the trial Court.

5. Nobody appeared for the respondent, though served.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as gone through the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Chanmuniya (supra) in paragraph 42 has held as under :

"42. We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term "wife" to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section

125. We also believe that such an interpretation would be a just application of the principles enshrined in the Preamble to our Constitution, namely, social justice and upholding the dignity of the individual."

7. From bare reading of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that a woman who is living together with a man as a husband and wife for a reasonable period of long time, then she will include under the definition of "wife" and being a wife she is entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In the present case, from perusal of the record, it appears that the applicant No.1 has produced ample documentary evidence to show that marriage has taken place between herself and respondent. She has produced the oral evidence to prove their marriage, however, the revisional Court has erred in not considering the said evidence and has committed an error in setting aside the order passed by the trial Court. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Chanmuniya (supra) has held that- strict proof of marriage is not a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., so as to fulfil true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Thus, in view of the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Apex Court, while awarding maintenance in favour of wife, strict proof of marriage is not required. In the present case, the applicant has produced the ample evidence to prove the marriage and, therefore, the revisional Court has committed an error in setting aside the order passed by the trial Court.

10. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 25/10/2002 passed by the 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Criminal Revision No.73/2002 is hereby set aside and the order passed by the trial Court is hereby restored.

(Ms. Vandana Kasrekar) JUDGE ts