ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent- husband challenging the order dated 15/10/2019 in Crl.Misc.No.151/2016 on the file of the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Dharwad, allowing the petition in part.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this Revision Petition are referred to with their rank before the Family Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 22/11/2015 at Alnawar and due to rift between the petitioner and the respondent, petitioner was not able to reside in the matrimonial home and as such she left the matrimonial home as the respondent and his family members have demanded dowry from the petitioner-wife. Hence, the
- 3 -
petitioner filed Crl.Misc.No.151/2016 before the Family Court, seeking maintenance.
4. On service of notice, respondent entered appearance and filed detailed objections denying existence of marriage as pleaded by the petitioner-wife on 22/11/2015 and also it is stated that the petitioner-wife never lived with him as a dutiful wife and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. In order to prove their case, petitioner-wife was examined as PW.1 and also examined another witness as PW.2 and produced twelve documents and same were marked as EX.P.1 to Ex.P.12. On the other hand, respondent was examined as RW.1 and produced three documents and the same were marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 15/10/2019 directed the respondent-husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent-husband has preferred this Revision Petition.
- 4 -
5. I have heard Sri.Shiharsh A Neelopant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein-husband and Sri.M.M.Naikwadi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein-wife.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since there was no solemnization of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, claiming maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. does not arise. He also brought to the notice of this Court that MFA.No.101273/2021 and MFA.No.101274/2021 are pending consideration before the Division Bench of this Court, disputing the marriage, and as such he sought for interference of this Court in the present petition.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court.
8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, though the learned counsel
- 5 -
appearing for the petitioner contending, disputing the marriage as urged by the petitioner-wife, however, in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chanmuniya V/s. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Another reported in 2011 (1) SCC 141 scope of proving marriage is not a condition precedent for awarding maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is also relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and another reported in AIR 1999 SC 3348, wherein in proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a summary in nature, the Family Court has no jurisdiction to decide/determine the rights of the parties and therefore, I am of the view that, submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted. However, taking into account the fact that dispute relating to the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is subjudice before this Court in the aforementioned appeals, and same is yet to be decided and therefore, there is no
- 6 -
impediment to accept the award granted by the Family Court, directing the respondent -husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/-. Having taken note of the finding recorded by the Family Court that the respondent-husband is working in HDMC as a Junior Engineer, I am of the view that, granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- by the Family Court is just and proper and it does not call for any interference in this Revision Petition. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VB