ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the respondent in Crl.Mis.No.161 of 2018, challenging the order dated 31.08.2020 passed by the I Additional Family Court, Tumakuru, allowing the petition in part filed under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this petition shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Family Court.
3. Brief facts are that petitioner No.1 and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 10.06.2012 at Shree Kshetra Dharmastala as per the customs and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 was born. It is the case of the petitioners
- 3 -
that the respondent-husband and his family members have made a demand for dowry and as such, they were harassing the petitioner No.1 and in that view of the matter, petitioner No.1 has lodged complaint under Domestic Violence Act, against the respondent-husband before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur in Crl.Mis.No.19 of 2013 and same is pending consideration before the trial Court. Hence, the petitioners have filed petition in Crl.Misc.No.161 of 2018 before the Family Court, seeking maintenance.
4. On service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed detailed Statement of Objections denying the claim made in the petition. In support of their claim, petitioners have examined 03 witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and have produced 2 documents and same were marked as Exs.P1 and P2. Respondent was examined as RW1 and produced 9 documents and same were marked as Exs.R1 to R9.
- 4 -
5. The Family Court, after considering the material on record by its order dated 31.08.2020 allowed the petition, directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.4,500/- from the date of petition till the date of the order and further directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.3,500/- to petitioner No.2 and feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent has presented this petition.
6. I have heard Sri Varun Papireddy, learned counsel appearing the respondent-husband and Sri Madhukar M. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-wife and child.
7. Sri Varun Papireddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband argued that the respondent has not married petitioner No.1 and she is a stranger to the respondent and she is not entitled for maintenance under Section- 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He also argued that the respondent disputed the paternity of
- 5 -
petitioner No.2. Accordingly, he sought for interference in this revision petition.
8. Per contra, Sri Madhukar M.Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-wife and child sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court.
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the finding recorded by the Family Court. Though the respondent- husband has raised an objection with regard to paternity of petitioner No.2, however, the perusal of the finding recorded by the Family Court, as per Exs.P1 and P2 (marriage invitation card and photo) would indicate that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 10.06.2012. It is well established principle that strict proof of marriage is not a condition precedent to consider the application under Section-125 Code of Criminal Procedure as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chanmuniya V. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and another
- 6 -
reported in (2010) 10 Scale 602 and it is also well established law that the proceedings under Section-125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which is summary in nature and the court cannot determine the rights of the parties except considering the grievance of the destitute wife and children. In that view of the matter, I do not find any acceptable grounds as urged by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband to dispute the relationship between the parties and it is open for respondent-husband to agitate his grievance before the competent court under appropriate proceedings. This aspect of the matter was decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and another reported 1999 (7) SCC 675 and also in the case of Kamala Vs. M.R. Mohan Kumar reported in 2018 SCC online SC 2121. However, taking into consideration the finding recorded by the Family Court with regard to award of maintenance, I have carefully considered the observation made by the Family Court at paragraph 11 of the order and therefore, I am of
- 7 -
the view that, the Family Court is justified in awarding maintenance to the petitioners, as the petitioners therein have proved that the respondent-husband has neglected to maintain the petitioners and in that view of the matter, the petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57