THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.578 of 2007

JUDGMENT

1. Impugning the order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.57 of 2006 dated 02.03.2007 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapur reversing the order in M.C.No.08 of 2005 dated 11.07.2006 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapur under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, the wife/Petitioner is before this Court.

2. The revisionist herein was the petitioner/wife and Respondent No.1 herein is the respondent/husband before the trial court. For the sake of convenience, the parties will referred as arrayed before the trial court. Petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month from her husband.

3. The gist of petitioner's case before the trial court is that,

a. She is legally wedded wife of the husband and their marriage took place in 1975 as per their caste, customs and traditions. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a female child by name Sujatha. She lived with her husband for a period of 2-3 years. Thereafter, she was necked out from her husband's house. As there is no other way she has been residing at her parent's house along with the daughter.

b. Respondent contacted second marriage with one Lingamma. As her health condition got completely damaged for the last three years, preceding to the filing of the petition, she is not able to maintain

herself, whereas, the respondent is working as a driver in APSRTC and getting a salary of Rs.8,000/- per month.

4. Version of the husband:

Petitioner is not his wife and he never lived with her as a husband. He is working as driver in APSRTC and getting a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. Petitioner is a permanent resident of Madakasira Village. In the Voter's list of the year 1999, her fathers' name was mentioned. He has no obligation to maintain the petitioner, only to harass him she filed petition at Ananthapur instead of Madakasira.

5. During the course of enquiry, Petitioner herself was examined as P.W.1, Ex.P-1 is the copy of the Voter's list marked. Respondent himself was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

6. The learned Trial Judge allowed the petition in part by awarding the maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of the petition and ordered the husband to pay the amount on or before 10th of every month.

7. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court, the husband carried the matter by way of revision before the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.57 of 2006. The learned Sessions Judge accepting the contention of the husband that the petitioner is not his legally wedded wife allowed the revision by setting aside the orders of the trial court.

8. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order in Criminal Revision Petition No.57 of 2006, the petitioner/wife carried the matter in this revision case,

9. Heard Sri Chaithanya Bhargava, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri Karri Murali Krishna, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

10. Learned Counsel for the Revisionist would challenge the correctness and propriety of the order passed by the Sessions Judge. He would contend that for the claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C strict proof of marriage ceremonies is not essential, when a woman is accepted as a wife of person by the public that would be sufficient for treating her as a wife. He would further submit that the impugned order is completely based on the presumptions and assumptions, and the School record and the birth certificate of the petitioner's daughter shows the name of the respondent as her father.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that this Court in a revision cannot reappreciate the evidence and must examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order alone. He would also contend that observation of what is elicited in the cross-examination to R.W.1 cannot be a ground to treat the petitioner as his wife and that the Petitioner even failed to file any wedding photo of her to show the presence of the respondent. He would also submit that R.W.1 denied the

paternity of the child. Futhermore, Ex.P.1- the document filed by the petitioner shows the name of the father. Hence, learned counsel prays to dismiss the present revision case.

12. For better appreciation of the matter, this Court perused the material on record. The point that would emerge for determination in this revision is that:

"Whether strict proof of marriage is required to claim maintenance by the wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C?"

Determination by the Court

13. The object of revisional jurisdiction is to set right a patent defect or error of jurisdiction or law. It is a settled principle of law that the revisional jurisdiction of a court is to be exercised cautiously. Certain illustrative circumstances wherein it can be invoked include, grossly erroneous decisions, non-compliance with the provisions of law, findings based on no evidence, ignorance to the material on record and exercise of judicial discretion in an arbitrary or perverse manner. This Court having noted the limits of revisional jurisdiction, perused the material placed on record.

14. A fairly similar issue arose before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamala and others v. M.R.Mohan Kumar1, wherein the contention of the respondent was that he never married the petitioner in Section 125 proceeding was placed. In that view, it was held as follows;

¹ (2019) 11 SCC 491.

"15. Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, 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 [Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit, (1999) 7 SCC 675 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1345] , 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." [Ed.: As observed in Chanmuniya case, (2011) 1 SCC 141, SCC p. 147, para 27.]

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 CrPC. Applying the well-settled principles, in the case in hand, Appellant 1 and the respondent were living together as husband and wife and had also begotten two children. Appellant 1 being the wife of the respondent, she and the children, Appellants 2 and 3 would be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

17. This Court in Chanmuniya case [Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 53 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 666] further held as under: (SCC p. 146, para 24)

……

"24. Thus, in those cases where a man, who lived with a woman for a long time and even though they may not have undergone legal necessities of a valid marriage, should be made liable to pay the woman maintenance if he deserts her. The man should not be allowed to benefit from the legal loopholes by enjoying the advantages of a de facto marriage without undertaking the duties and obligations. Any other interpretation would lead the woman to vagrancy and destitution, which the provision of maintenance in Section 125 is meant to prevent."

(emphasis supplied)

……

19. After referring to the divergence of judicial opinion on the interpretation of the word "wife" in Section 125 CrPC, speaking for the Bench A.K. Ganguly, J. held that the Bench is inclined to take a broad view of the definition of "wife", having regard to the social object of Section 125 CrPC.

20. In Chanmuniya case [Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 53 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 666] , this Court formulated three questions and referred the matter to the larger Bench. However, after discussing various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, this Court held that a broad and extensive interpretation should be given to the term "wife" under Section 125 CrPC and held as under: (SCC p. 149, para 42)

"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**."**

(emphasis supplied)

15. In the backdrop of the discussion supra, strict proof of marriage is not required to a wife to claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Coming to the facts of the present case, the contention of the wife is that her marriage with the respondent took place in 1975 and the couple were blessed with two children, unfortunately they lost a son. After staying together for two or three years, she was necked out of the house.

16. As seen from the counter, it is undisputed fact that the petitioner is a resident of Madakasira. If the contention of the respondent that the petitioner is a new person and is not his wife is correct, he would not have ventured to mention about the details of the petitioner as in the voter list. Admittedly, Ex.P-1 shows the name of the petitioners' father in the voter list. That itself is insuffice to declare her claim to maintain against the respondent.

17. As rightly placed on record by the learned Trial Judge, the respondent as R.W.1 admitted in the cross-examination that the people of the Madakasira use to treat and call the petitioner, as the wife of the respondent. The contention of the husband that the wife has not claimed maintenance for a long time is not a criteria to refute her claim because when she was able to do some work and maintain herself, she never claimed maintenance from this person. Admittedly, the respondent is working in APSRTC. According to the wife, his salary is Rs.8,000/- but husband says his salary is Rs.4,000/-. The fact remains that he is an employee in the APSRTC. Nothing prevented the respondent to file his salary certificate to show that he is drawing Rs.4,000/- per month as

salary. Viewed from any angle, the observations made relating to the proof of marriage are unwarranted.

18. In the light of the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the learned Sessions Judge in revision erroneously dismissed the claim of maintenance by setting aside the well reasoned order of the trial Court. This Court does not find any force in the contention of the respondent. In that view of the matter, the impugned order brooks interference of this Court in the revision.

19. Accordingly, the Revision Case is allowed. Impugned order passed in C.R.P.No.57 of 2006 dated 02.03.2007 is hereby set aside restoring the order of the trial Court in M.C.No.08 of 2005 dated 11.07.2006.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Date: 31.08.2023 MSI

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Crl.R.C.No.578 of 2007

Date: 31.08.2023 MSI