Smt. Manika Debbarma Singha v. Soumendra Singha

IN
THE
HIGH
COURT
OF
TRIPURA
A
G
A
R
T
A
L
A

CRL.
REV.
P.
No.
46
of
2014
Smt.
Manika
Debbarma
(Singha)





 



 
 

 
 
 
 




!" 












.........
Petitioner
-
V
e
r
s
u
s
-
Shri
Soumendra
Debbarma,


 
#

 
 
$ %  
   
  
&

" 



!" 

........

Respondent
BEFORE
THE
HON'BLE
MR.
JUSTICE
S.
TALAPATRA
'

" 

:



&
( )
*+ ,
 -





'

"

:



&

 
 -



  :



./ .012



-


3
 :



30.01.2015



" 




:



Yes No
√
JUDGMENT
&
ORDER




 
 


4 

 "


, + 

 
 4


" 4
4 -


+



5 "  6





4
7"
4

 
4 

 
 
 

 +





4 







+


+
 

 
4 8
(



 

"

 "

+

" 

- 






[2]

"" 

 


 " 
%   

,

"  

" 


 










, + 
4
 +



" 

 


+





!
"
 4 "
4

3 
'


 
  

!"  4

%



.9 .01:
-
&
:;2

.011
 
 <

Thus
from
the
entire
evidence
of
both
the
petitioner
and
the
opposite
party
it
is
admitted
fact
that
the
petitioner
is
the
3rd
wife
of
the
opposite
party.
The
first
wife
Sushila
Debbarma
is
now
alive
and
no
divorce
was
done
in
between
herself
and
the
opposite
party
is
also
an
admitted
fact.
In
view
of
the
facts
of
no
divorce
between
the
opposite
party
and
the
1st
wife
Sushila
Debbarma,
the
2nd
wife,
the
3rd
wife
Manika
Debbarma(respondent)
have
no
legal
existence/
status.
During
the
existence
of
the
1st
marriage
with
Sushila
Debbarma,
the
2nd
and
3rd
marriage
are
void
from
ab
initio.

[2]





 

 
4- 


""

 
 
3 
'


 
 
7

%  
4

,

 
 


 
  
+
7 

%  



1.2


 
(+-

 




5



6


" 

  

3 
'


 
 

"



"





 :000
"

+ 
01 1.

.01:


 
3 4





 


" 
&

, 
= 44

>






% 
+ 10



-
?


 


& 
 


 
4
 

4
4 
4

"

@ -
 
4







 

4

,

 



,



" 

  




[3] [3]
 





4

" 
+


4




.9 .01:

 
 
4  
4

"




1A=B>


'


 

19AB [4]

&
( )
*+ ,

 
""  


" 
 
 4  
4
  

 4 


"- 



"



.A 0A .00B

 "


+ ,
 



3 "
 
+
+ 
B= >
 




 

 

"




1.2


  
+ 
4

!



 
 
  

" 


+ 

 

+ 
 "

 -


6
"
!



 
 +
+,











"

!
" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
+




!
" 
  
"


 
4 +


 12000= "

 

>

" 

!
"




 

-
+

" 
 4

+

 4


+ ,


3 "

+ 
4

(
 

 


 
1A/.



 
 
 

 



%4


* 
 
'
! 
 
 


 - 
4






"


 
1A/9






"

!


 
 

 


 
1A99





 ,


)


'




[4]









 "


 

 



+ -  


 

!
" 
 



 %  

+

"


4



3 "

?-

 
3 "
+ 



!
"


-  

" 
+



+
 


 





!


 


4%
 

"  

" 

+







 , + 
 
- 4


 
* 

-
  
-


 



  







[5]
C
"" 


 
 

"

:=>
+ 
+ 

"

.=+>
+ 

 4

 

"-
"

  [6]
&

 

 
""  




 
 





   







 

+

+
 



 -

  

 
+

+
+







1.2


 

 





"7
 

Savitaben
Somabhai
Bhatiya
vs.
State
of
Gujarat
and
Ors.,
"
(2005)
3
SCC
636,
+

"7
 
""- 

 " Yamunabai's
case
:(1998)
1
SCC
530
 
4-

<


"15.
In

Yamunabai's
case
:
(1988)
1
SCC
530,
it
was
held
that
expression
'wife'
used
in
Section
125
of
the
Code
should
be
interpreted
to
mean
only
a
legally
wedded
wife.
The
word
'wife'
is
not
defined
in
the



[5] Code
except
indicating
in
the
Explanation
to
Section
125
its
inclusive
character
so
as
to
cover
a
divorcee.
A
woman
cannot
be
a
divorcee
unless
there
was
a
marriage
in
the
eye
of
law
preceding
that
status.
The
expression
must
therefore
be
given
the
meaning
in
which
it
is
understood
in
law
applicable
to
the
parties.
The
marriage
of
a
woman
in
accordance
with
the
Hindu
rites
with
a
man
having
a
living
spouse
is
a
complete
nullity
in
the
eye
of
law
and
she
is
therefore
not
entitled
to
the
benefit
of
Section
125
of
the
Code
or
the
Hindu
Marriage
Act,
1955
(in
short
the
'Marriage
Act').
Marriage
with
a
person
having
a
living
spouse
is
null
and
void
and
not
voidable.
However,
the
attempt
to
exclude
altogether
the
personal
law
applicable
to
the
parties
from
consideration
is
improper.



                             

   

  !    

             

     





    "   #     $ 


                                      %        

   #$#  .
16.
But
it
does
not
further
the
case
of
the
appellant
in
the
instant
case.
Even
if
it
is
accepted
as
stated
by
learned
counsel
for
the
appellant
that
the
husband
was
treating
her
as
his
wife
it
is
really
inconsequential.
It
is
the
intention
of
the
legislature
which
is
relevant
and
not
the
attitude
of
the
party.
17.
!& '        $          

          '  #    

   $.
The
principle
of
estoppel
cannot
be
pressed
into
service
to
defeat
the
provision
of
Section
125
of
the
Code."


[Emphasis
supplied]
[7]
&

 

 
 
 
 4  


- 


" 

"


 




[6] 
"- 


 


 -
- 

 





5

 
  6
+ 




, + 

"- 




"


 


"




4
 

[8]

C
" 

 
"
&
( )
*+ ,
 
""  


" 
 


"


" 
1
+

" 
  

 

 




+ 



4



 

+





+ 
- 



+

 



- 




, +
 

+ 


+
(
+
+-


-


 
+
 






+

 
 

"


+ +, 

 4
C "


*'

+ -



-


+ 
 

" 
+ 


 







3 "

+ 
4 5+ ,6
*

4

4 
 
" 
 




6
" 

02 0;

.011

 
- 
"


 
 

  [9]
!
 
+-
 
4
  


7




"


"

!

+ 
 -

"



 

 


 
  


" 
 



"



1

- 
!

 
 


+
  

4 
+ 
 - 




- 


+
 +

 







[7]

 ,

'
4






 
?-

 ,



(+-

  
"
&

" 
  

-


 ,
 
 




" 


 
.00B
* 
+ 

 " 
- 
 


 ""

+ - 


 +
4% 


5

 6
+



 4%

#+

 
 



- 


" 


"- 


(
 
 

 
4

+


 10000
"



" 

?-  .
* %
)


 
 

"



" 
"

 


 +




[10]

'   
  


 
"

  






"



1.2


 


"" 
 
&

 

 
""  





4 

 


" 
-  

 


"- 


 
4 "

C
 2


"

 
4


<

"That,
it
is
pertinent
to
mention
here
that
in
the
year
1983
the
first
wife
namely,
Smt.
Sushila
Singh
was
socially
divorced
by
the
OP
and
out
of
their
said
wedlock
the
petitioner
No.2
was
born,
thereafter,
the
first
wife
of
the
OP
married
to
another
person.
Thereafter,
the
OP
married
again
to
the
mother
of
the
petitioner
No.3,
namely
Smt.
Padma
Sakhi
Singh
was
also
socially
divorced
in
the
year
1994
and
thereafter,
the
present
petitioner
No.1
was
married
by
the
OP
in
the
year
2004
and
the
petitioner
No.4
was
born
out
of
their
said
wedlock.
The
petitioner
Nos.2,3
&
4
are
living
with
their
mother,
petitioner
No.1
at
present."




[8] !
- 
 
4 
4

"

C

 4 


 


+
4%

"



 
4

" 




[11]
(+-


""

 
 





" 
+

"


+  


8
 


"- 




 
 
4 

- 
+ 


  


?-
 

"



1.2


 


D -


 
4 


" "

- 


"




+

C





 


 D 



C " 

" 


 
 




, + 


"- 




"

! 



- 
-  

"


 "

" 
+



4 
 

! 

 % 





 
 

"


+
4%
+

 -

 

 
 


 
 4
4

- 


 
4
" 


" 



, + 


"- 




+ 
 " 



+ 
 
 " 

  



+

!
 

Nitya
Gopal
Sukla
Das
vs.
Anjali
Nag,
"
(2014)
2
TLR
263
 - 


Badshah
vs.
Urmila
Badshah
Godse
&
Anr.,
"
(2014)
1
SCC
188
 

 
 7
%  





+
"-



1.2


 
 

4
" "-
"

!



4


 
4




[9] "
4 

 
4
 "

- 

4

4%-

 

 

C
Badshah
vs.
Urmila
Badshah
Godse
&
Anr.,

"7
 
 



 +






<
"19.
In Rameshchandra
Rampratapji
Daga
v.
Rameshwari
Remeshchandra
Daga :
AIR
2005
SC
422,
the
right
of
another
woman
in
a
similar
situation
was
upheld.
Here
the
Court
had
accepted
that
Hindu
marriages
have
continued
to
be
bigamous
despite
the
enactment
of
the
Hindu
Marriage
Act
in
1955.
The
Court
had
commented
that
though
such
marriages
are
illegal
as
per
the
provisions
of
the
Act,
they
are
not
'immoral'
and
hence
a
financially
dependent
woman
cannot
be
denied
maintenance
on
this
ground.
20.
Thus,
while
interpreting
a
statute
the
court
may
not
only
take
into
consideration
the
purpose
for
which
the
statute
was
enacted,
but
also
the
mischief
it
seeks
to
suppress.
It
is
this
mischief
rule,
first
propounded
in
Heydon's
Case: (1584)
3
Co.

Rep.
7a
which
became
the
historical
source
of
purposive
interpretation.
The
court
would
also
invoke
the
legal
maxim    #$# , in
such
cases
i.e.
where
alternative
constructions
are
possible
the
Court
must
give
effect
to
that
which
will
be
responsible
for
the
smooth
working
of
the
system
for
which
the
statute
has
been
enacted
rather
than
one
which
will
put
a
road
block
in
its
way.
If
the
choice
is
between
two
interpretations,
the
narrower
of
which
would
fail
to
achieve
the
manifest
purpose
of
the
legislation
should
be
avoided.

We
should
avoid
a
construction
which
would
reduce
the
legislation
to
futility
and
should
accept
the
bolder
construction
based
on
the
view
that
Parliament
would
legislate
only
for
the
purpose
of
bringing
about
an
effective
result.
If
this
interpretation
is
not
accepted,
it
would
amount
to
giving
a
premium
to
the
husband
for
defrauding
the
wife.
Therefore,
at
least
for
the
purpose
of
claiming
maintenance
under
Section
125
of
Cr.P.C.,
such
a
woman
is
to
be
treated
as
the
legally
wedded
wife."




[10] [12]




- 
 




 4

"




 "






+ 

" 
  
 

+

,
4 

"- 




"

! 

" 

" "






54
 
 
+
+6



[13]
!
4 
" 

  


 "




+ ,

,
+

  
  " 

 

 -
 
-


-+ 


"4

4
-

", 
 
 
 "
 

+


-
+

-






 
-+


"7
 

Captain
Ramesh
Chander
Kaushal
vs.
Mrs.
Veena
Kaushal
&
others,
reported
in
(1978)
4
SCC
70
 4 

 

,

-+
 





 
4

3 
'


 


  


""  

 -
 - 


4


4%




-
3 
* %
 8



   


 4- 


 
 

 

  





3 
 "  


+,
" 






 "

4
 EE
!

 "

+ 

4



-

C "


",




+
 
4 

 


-



+
+-
4 

 




 



4
"7 


 6

!
"


 
 
 
4 



  





[11] [14]
( - 



 

 

 
+

 " 
%



 

 

"



 
  
 
"


+4



4


 - 





"


3 "


[15]
!
" 


 


( - 


 


"




 



 
"




 .000
= "
+
 

>


" 
"







3 
'


 
 

"







" 6



3 "


 
4 



+ 
 



 
!



4
 


" 
+
10



-
?


 





 




 
" "
 
4
4 
4


(+-

"


 
4

4






+




4

,



" 


" 
    


4

,

C  


+-

 


 



 









" 
 
 % 4 

 
 


[16]


 

"


+

JUDGE