(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