Rekhlal Sahu v. Smt.Kanti Sahu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH

AT BILASPUR •SSSaS-sS i-:*aa-•";.•>-.

fcS3 Criminal Revision No. ...V9.'r>.<'../2013 ^ Rekhlal Sahu S/o Awadh ram APPLICANT Non-Applicant Sahu, aged about 31 years, R/o Village Shergarh, Post Office '^'iS.-^ Shergarh, Head Post Office & Lst",.^'TO.-"""- Tahsil Khairagarh, Civil Revenue & •^ District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ./••••:'l^'l^ ^^^ /•-?^*v"

»t.fl ^•E^""

.^-^"

VERSUS

NON-APPLICANT :

SmtKanti Sahu W/o Rekhlal Sahu (wrongly shown married wife of Rekhlal Sahu) aged about 2<7 83 years, R/o Village Doma, Post Bori, Tahisl Dhamdha, Civil Revenue & District Durg (C.G.) •€.

CREMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION_19 (4) FAMILY ^ COURTS ACT READ WITH SECTION 397/401 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE Being aggrieved by impugned order dated .c__ .

.

.

..

/-'

06/09/2013 passed in miscellaneous 5criminal ,<:'_._ .

.

_.

. ^.

case No.

21/2012 passed by 3rd Additional ^ Principle Judge, Family court Durg (C.G.) Presided (.^•N.^l-y over by Shri K. Vinod Kujur; whereby maintenance ofRs. 1000/- per raonth payable to non applicant, froin the applicant has been imposed;

the applicant named above most humbly begs to

prefer this Memo of revision on the following facts and grounds.

Certified copy of the order being marked and annexed as ANNEXURE/C-R.R-_1.

CCKJICT OF CHiEAITISGARH ^i;T BILASPTO f.RTM'T'"BAi. SRV^SIin" WOl. fiSO. flP SOI R ^]iF-F£%.;ii.^,'sls.a, =.'^^.I»ii rS'^e^?^ Si^StLB,n;?J,,'aJ J1,^!^E'?'6 Q!-!iS>^' V'^ !^l'S^ ^, lC^ ^ APT'UCAWT ii'iiOU-SLpptlCSIlEs Rekhi iahu C^^^^ -E/-^^^.^ C;.^"h^ vSjilt.

iYcJLi'llLi Oy.iltl ^aDDiicant) >'Rixrisinsi'

I.'^.E? '^' i,s33.^i=?a,^1 •i w' 'rsas w.sittij ».;VUK ,% <n^ , iS»0'

TSTW^- g^s*. ^g^^ .?*'

%Jf3?

1 £'.

CRIBSINAL PROCEDrRB. 1973 oMr- R.N. Jha, Advocate, for the Applicsuat.

Mr. P.R. Pataj-ikar, Aeh/oca^e; for Non-appli .1?-1^-/~- ^li^^SLli!..- |S|Egle_Benca s Hon'&le Mr. P.

ECosIiw^jIj ^i^^.i. oi^i^^^'

°^'Sfe..s^iSi-F&'^.

;?'§ ^-.Q-^^i'B si.

t"^~^-Ula^.^ l-r Heard on adinission.

^ifaJ !y way of the present criminal revision, the applicsuit has chailenged the order dated 6.9.2013 passed in M.Cr.C. No.21/2012 fcy Third Additional Prindpal Judge, Family Court, Durg (for short, "Fainihr Court ).

(3) Facts of the case in short are that non-appiicant (Smt. ita.nti S&nuj had flled a case before the Faiiuly Court under Section 125 of CrPC clslining maintenance from the applicant (Rekhlal Sa.hu}. Case of the non-appllcaiit before the Famijy Court was that the applicsuit had nian-ied her ajid after some tiine he had left her without any source of maintenance and she wss finding it diffi.cult fco sustain herself suid, therefore, she was compelled to file a case under Section 125 of CrPC dairaing a relief of an amount of Rs.5000/- ^rtT"t nr^ trcm tne appllcant towarcls m.amtenance.

..Fn,., (4] The applicant herein (wno was non-applicant betore the riamiiy Court) had entered appearance ajid subinitted his written statexnent befbre the Fajnily Court statiiig that the first wife of the applicant was Saiitoshi Bai aad that subsequeatly he had been Iwing with Ka.ntl. SatsAi (who is non-applicarit in the present revision petition). However, the applicant has also suhmitted in his reply that the ar)d.ic£ntis as of now stavins with suiother ladv najnelv1 Revati Bai,,...- ^ ILJ ^L.:'„-„.:.-.^?

^ k '^ J '^-y (Sj After taking into consideration the entire evidence, the Family Court vide impugned order dared 6.9.2013 has passed an order for pEQ^ment of Tna.in.tenaTice to noin-applicant (Kaiiti Sahu) at the ra.te of Rs. 1000/- per month payabie by the appllcant (Rekhlal Sahu). It is this order which ha.s been oufc t',n- /~?.^^ l^i f^^'^^j ;e Dy the applicant (Rekhlal Sahu) in the instant criininal revision stating that non-appiicajit (Ksjiti Sahu) is not entitled for malnfcenance and tiie order of the Fajnily Court is bad in law. (71 Learned counsel fbr the applicaLiit has contend.ed that nonapplicant has fsuled to establish a.s to how s3ie was the leg^lly wedded wife so as to get the advsjita.ge of maintenaTice under Section 125 of CrPC.

The counsel has further contended that the Family Court has not properly appreciated the contentions put fbrth by the present applicant in as much as the first wife of the present applica.nt nainely Santoshi Bal is alwe and living at Rajnandga.on. It was also the contention of the counsel for the applicant that even in i~'^~s •fi if^in .''-^ i=!.ii-~t/"^^t ".

U'"s c'

•y^ir^^'

i"-.i'·'l.^E^"|!

.i-s-.c1.''-1-311^,1 •S c"tT*. ,ffs/~| i~(T ?- •y~i ."t.y*. _ fSi r^h'"-'. i ^ r^> Q; "-"s'S" rTie'- 'h/r\ LiiC CVi.UCjliL:C Iiy.i^ ilUL iJCCll t^LoLUUyjliCU..

iSJy'

ilL?i.t~y.|,..>l'^ii^''y.iiL c.i_£:.

LU whether there had been customary dhrorce by the applicant with. his flrst wife Santoshi Bai. In the absence of these ineredients, the Court below ought to haye been. considered the contentions of the applicant in its right perspective asid should haye rejected the application filed by non-applicaiit on the ground that maintenaace would only be entitled to a lady who is the legally wedded wife. (8] Per contra., learned counsel fbr non-applicaiit opposing the prayer of the applicant took the Court through the evidence that have come on record and also the written statement flled by the present applicajit before fche Fajmily Court wherein the appiicant has admltted that he had been staying with the present nonapplicant fbr quite some tiine. In the evidence of the present :ne presen'

applicant befbre the Family Court, he h&s also admitted at a eouple cf place that the applicant was staying with the present nonapplicant as husband and -sife for quite some time.

(9} Considering fche rival contentions put fbrth by the counsel appeari.ng ibr dther side aiid on perusal of the evidence that have come o'n record, firstly, when we read the written statement filed by the present applicajit, in his additional submission that he has made in his written statement he has refen-ed to Santoshi' Bai as his first wife. This itself gwes an inference thafc non-applica-nt wa.s the second wife for the reason that in the written statem.enfc itself the present applicemt aiimits the fact that he had been staying with the present non-applicant -at Hirri for qi-iite some time. ^z-, 'lOj Further, if we peruse the evidence of the applicant, firstiy, in para 5 he has refcrred at hvo places that he had been staying with the present non-applicant as husband and v»'ife a.

nd, secondly, he slso a-dmits that he had been having physical relations with nonapplicant and maintained the sa.me as husbaiid said wife. (11) If'tVe see the statement ofAW-2 Amar Singh SaJiu, he has also in his statement made a submission that the marriage of the present applicant Rekhlal Saliu with his first wife Santoshi Bai had been dissolved under the prevaiKn.t custom of the society, which is generalty kncwn as Chhorchhij.tti.

(12j Further, on going through the evidence given by non-applicant Kanti. SsAu before the Family Court, it is evidently clear that she wa.s not aware about the present applicaiit being already a maj'ried person emd that she was not aware of the present appllcaiit was inairied to Santoshi Bai earlier and that this fa.ct was noit disdosed to her by the present applicajit.

(13) Talcing into consideration the evidence that ia.ve. come on record, it is established thsLt the applicant ha.

.

acunrfcted of acceptmg Si-nt. Kanti SaJiu to be his wife.

(14} Recently, Hon'ble Supremc Court in the case of v.

3oii. Vs'smla et.nuther, reported in 2014 SCW 286, has held that if there are strong and cogeiit eviden.ee that the petitioner and the respondent were living as husband and wife

-4- '-X.

then the application under Section 125 C-rPC for maintenance Vi-a.s sustainabte. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgement has aJ.so stafced tha-t the purpose of.Section 125 CrPC is to a.chleve social justice which is the Constifcutional vision enshrined in the Preainble of the Constitution of India. Hon'ble Supreine Court ha.s fi-irther held fchat it becom-es the bounden duty' of the Courts to advance the cause of the social jusfcice.

(1S1 Hon'ble Supreine Court in the said judgement has relied upon the judgeffient passed in v. Virendra Ktsshweiha.

an-sther [2011 (1) SCC 141] in which. it has been held that the term "wife" occun-ing in Section 124 CrPC is to be fil'fi'

•i-t"!.^ ^- ^aven very wide interpretation with an object of fulfiUing the spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of inalntenance under Section 125 CrPC- Referring to the judgeinent in the case of Chaninuniya (supra), in para 12, Hon'ble Supreme Court has in categorical terms hdd thar a. broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term wife to indude even those cases where a rn.an and woman ha-ve been living together as husband and v/ife for reascnably long period of time and in such cases strict proof of rf^. ^* 1F^nH ftl '< T^l*i 7*t^Si"1u/^ ^ T^t <'^1 »*?- "< ~! ^*? ^ S .'C*Lry iOi ill^lll LdlUll.UG UIIU'GI inarriage should not be a preSection 125 CrPC. (16] Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badshuh (supra'j in para 17 has ca.tegorically held as such:

"17. Thirdly, in sucli cases, purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125, Cr.P.C. While dealing with the application of destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is deating with the inargmalized sections of the society. The purpose is fco achieve "socisJ justice which is the Constitutionai. vision, enshrined in the Prearnbie of the Constitution of mdia. prea-mble to the Constituti.on of India deariv signals that we ha^/e chosen the deniocratic pa.fch under rule of law to achieve the goal of securing fbr atl its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternifcy.

It speci&caU.y hlghlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it beconies the bounden duti,.r of the Courts to advance the cau.se of thesoclal justice. While gh^ing interpretation. to a particular provision, the Court is supposed to brid^ the gap between the [a.\y a-nd societv.

_.. ^ -.-.- ^^^s^i,

(17) Tsldng [Bto considerstion thc facts and circunistan.ces of the ca.se particularly in the light of e'/ldence of the a.pplicajit a.s well a.s that QfSmt KaTifci Sa.hu. (AW-1), I ajn of the opinion that the Family Court has not comniitted a-ny error of law while pa^ing the impugned order dated 6.9.2013 ajid the sa.me is proper, lega! aiid justifled.

(18} Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs.

^ §(]/.

P. Sam Koshy Judge isivl