It would be of immense significance to note that the Jharkhand High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled ABC vs The State of Jharkhand & Anr in Cr. Revision No. 946 of 2022 that was pronounced as recently as on 12.01.2024 has observed very clearly that the documentary evidence of marriage cannot be insisted particularly in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
It further maintained that a presumption of marriage can be drawn if the parties are living together as husband and wife. The Court observed so in a revision application that was filed for quashing the order of the Family Court by which the application for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC was allowed with a clear direction to the husband to pay Rs 5,000/- per month to the wife.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Instant revision application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 20.05.2022 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.352 of 2018 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge-II, Family Court, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been allowed with a direction to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- per month to the opposite party no.2.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that, “As per the case of applicant, she was married to this petitioner on 10.03.2013 in the temple of Bhadra Kali at Chatra. Initially, after marriage, there was normal conjugal relation between them, but thereafter, the relationship turned sour and due to the conduct of the Petitioner, she suffered miscarriage twice.”
As things stand, the Bench enunciates in para 3 that, “It is averred in the maintenance application that the petitioner is in the business of mobile repair in the city of Hazaribag and was also in the real estate business, from which he had monthly income of Rs.25,000/-. Lately he got employment in Government service, on category reserved for handicapped. After that, he was getting proposals for marriage from different quarters and had deserted the applicant and was not supporting her, consequently she was not in a position to maintain herself.”
As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 4 that, “Four witnesses have been examined on behalf of both sides each, and the learned Court below recorded a finding that the petitioner was the wife for the purpose for claim of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, though not in strict legal sense under the Hindu Marriage Act, and ordered the maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month.”
As it turned out, the Bench then pointed out in para 5 that, “Being aggrieved by the order, instant revision application has been preferred on the ground that the applicant was not legally married wife of the petitioner. As per the case of the applicant, the said marriage was solemnized in a temple, but no certificate has been adduced into evidence on behalf of the applicant to show that the marriage was indeed performed.”
Simply put, the Bench then states in para 6 that, “On the contrary, the defence has adduced into evidence the certificate issued by the Management of the Committee of the said Temple which has been marked as ‘Z’ for identification, in which it has been stated that no such marriage was performed. Furthermore, the applicant had lodged Hazaribag (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.201 of 2022 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and other Sections. Final form has been submitted by recording a finding that the petitioner was not legally married wife of the complainant.”
Truth be told, the Bench then aptly observes in para 7 that, “It is argued that even if it is assumed that the petitioner was in live-in-relationship with the applicant/opposite party no.2, they cannot be treated as husband and wife, which is the basic ingredient for passing an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The language of Section is crystal clear wherein a legally married wife is entitled to maintenance. There is no evidence of valid marriage. The applicant was earlier married to one Pappu Kumar and in support of it photo copy of the application for marriage under Kanyadan scheme to one Pappu Kumar has been filed.”
Further, the Bench mentions in para 8 that, “On the quantum of maintenance awarded, it is submitted that without any proof of income, maintenance amount has been saddled on the petitioner, on the ground that he was holding Diploma in Elementary Education and the said degree had prospect of getting job in future.”
Furthermore, the Bench then observes in para 9 that, “Learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no.2 has defended the impugned order. It is submitted that Exhibit F cannot be relied as that is not an evidence of marriage, it is only an application for marriage, but there is no other material to show that applicant was married to Pappu Kumar. It is further submitted that copy of certificate (Exihibit-2) issued by Block Development Officer will go to show that the applicant had not derived any benefit under the Kanyadan Yojana.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 10 that, “A strict proof of marriage in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, is not required, particularly when the evidence is on record that the Applicant was living with the opposite party as husband and wife. There is a presumption of marriage in such cases, which is however rebuttable. It has been held in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 10. Before we deal with the aforesaid submission, we would like to refer to two more judgments of this Court. The first case is known as Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit [Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit, (1999) 7 SCC 675 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1345] . In this case it was held: (SCC pp. 679-80 & 682, paras 6 & 13) “6. … the validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceedings under Section 125 CrPC is to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties. The standard of proof of marriage in such proceedings is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under Section 494 IPC. If the claimant in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code succeeds in showing that she and the respondent have lived together as husband and wife, the court can presume that they are legally wedded spouses, and in such a situation, the party who denies the marital status can rebut the presumption. … Once it is admitted that the marriage procedure was followed then it is not necessary to further probe into whether the said procedure was complete as per the Hindu rites in the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. 13. … from the evidence which is led if the Magistrate is prima facie satisfied with regard to the performance of marriage in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC which are of a summary nature, strict proof of performance of essential rites is not required.
It is further held: (Dwarika Prasad Satpathy case [Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit, (1999) 7 SCC 675 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1345] , SCC p. 681, para 9)
9. It is to be remembered that the order passed in an application under Section 125 CrPC does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties and the said section is enacted with a view to provide summary remedy for providing maintenance to a wife, children and parents. For the purpose of getting his rights determined, the appellant has also filed a civil suit, which is pending before the trial court. In such a situation, this Court in S. Sethurathinam Pillai v. Barbara [(1971) 3 SCC 923 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 171] observed that maintenance under Section 488 CrPC, 1898 (similar to Section 125 CrPC) cannot be denied where there was some evidence on which conclusion for grant of maintenance could be reached. It was held that order passed under Section 488 is a summary order which does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties; the decision of the criminal court that there was a valid marriage between the parties will not operate as decisive in any civil proceeding between the parties.”
No doubt, it is not a case of second marriage but deals with standard of proof under Section 125 CrPC by the applicant to prove her marriage with the respondent and was not a case of second marriage. However, at the same time, this reflects the approach which is to be adopted while considering the cases of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC which proceedings are in the nature of summary proceedings.”
Suffice to say, the Bench states in para 11 that, “In the present case as per the application for maintenance, Applicant was married to the petitioner, Ram Kumar Ravi on 10.03.2013. There is no documentary evidence in support of the said marriage. On the contrary in the case filed by Complainant against the petitioner, under different Sections of the Indian Penal Code, final form has been submitted by the investigating agency holding that there did not exist any marital relationship.”
Briefly stated, the Bench mentions in para 12 that, “Altogether 4 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the Applicant. A.W.01 is the mother of the Applicant.
She states that Applicant was married to the Petitioner in the temple of Bhadrakali and more than six years have elapsed since the marriage. After the marriage, both were living together as husband and wife, and the Petitioner was paying the house rent. She has denied the suggestion that Applicant had married someone else before her marriage. A.W.-02 is the Applicant. In Para 18 of the cross-examination, she has deposed that she was married in the temple on 10.10.2013.
From the temple they had received original copy of the marriage. She has denied the suggestion that she was married to Ashok Karmali. On the point of marriage, A.W.-3 has stated that the Applicant was married to the opposite party but she was unable to give the date of marriage of applicant Nayana Kumari. A.W.-4 has testified that Applicant was living in his neighbourhood with the opposite party as husband and wife.” Interestingly enough, the Bench discloses in para 13 that, “Petitioner has been examined as O.P. No.1. He has denied that he was married to the Applicant.
Please read the conclusion on thedailyguardian.com