While rejecting a revision application filed for quashing grant of maintenance to a woman, the Jharkhand High Court held that documentary evidence of marriage in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, is not required, especially when the evidence is on record that the Applicant was living with the opposite party as husband and wife.

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “Documentary evidence of marriage cannot be insisted in all cases, particularly in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. If the parties live together as husband and wife, a presumption of marriage can be drawn.”

The above ruling came in a revision application filed for quashing of the order passed in an Original Maintenance Case by Additional Principal Judge-II, Family Court, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C was allowed with a direction to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- per month to the wife (opposite party no.2.)

As per the applicant, both the parties entered into matrimony in March 2013. Initially, their marital relations were normal, but over time, she alleged the relationship soured, leading to the applicant suffering two miscarriages allegedly due to the petitioner's conduct.

It was averred in the maintenance application that the petitioner, initially engaged in mobile repair and real estate business with a monthly income of Rs. 25,000, later secured government employment under a handicapped reservation category. Subsequently, he allegedly abandoned the applicant, who was unable to support herself.

On the contrary, the defense presented a certificate issued by the Committee of the mentioned Temple, asserting that no such marriage took place.

The lower court determined that, while not legally recognized under the Hindu Marriage Act, the applicant could be considered the petitioner's wife for maintenance purposes under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Consequently, the court ordered a monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000.

Challenging this decision, the petitioner husband filed a revision application, arguing that the applicant wife was not legally married to him. According to the applicant, the marriage took place in a temple, but no certificate was presented as evidence to substantiate the marriage claim.

Upon thorough examination of witness testimonies, the court concluded that witnesses supporting the applicant consistently affirmed the existence of the marriage, while those presented by the opposing party consistently denied such a union.

The court also observed the inclusion of photographs into evidence, depicting the applicant with the petitioner, which went uncontested.

The court emphasized that the insistence on documentary evidence of marriage is not obligatory in every case, especially in proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

The court observed that the opposing parties presented inconsistent and changing positions regarding the applicant's marriage. Some witnesses asserted that she was married to a person named Pappu, for whom the applicant had submitted a kanyadan application. On the contrary, another witness claimed that she was married to Ashok Karmali, while yet another stated that she was married to both Ashok Karmali and a person named Saroj Kumar.

The Court held, “As discussed above, presumption of marriage living together is a rebuttable presumption, but there should be some consistent material to rebut the said presumption. Main plank of defence is that Petitioner was not married to applicant as she was married since before the marriage. There is no consistent case, far less any cogent evidence, regarding the previous marriage of the applicant.”

“In view of the contradictory evidence, presumption of marriage is not rebutted and the plea of earlier marriage of the Applicant cannot be accepted. I do not see any reason to differ with the finding of fact recorded by the learned Trial Court, only on the basis of a document purported to be issued by the temple management, which has not even been proved properly, and has been marked as Exhibit-Z for identification,” the Court added while rejecting the plea that Applicant was not married to the Petitioner.

The court acknowledged that the Applicant was a person with disabilities and, based on the maintenance application, engaged in a mobile repair business and earned income from real estate, resulting in a monthly income of Rs 25,000/-. However, the court observed a lack of specific details about the mobile repairing business's location, any land transactions contributing to the monthly income, and the petitioner's government job, with no information provided by witnesses regarding the department or post held by the petitioner.

In light of these gaps, the court determined that the petitioner's income could only be estimated based on a fair assessment of their overall situation. Considering this, the court deemed the initial income assessment of Rs 20,000/- to be on the higher side and concluded that an income ranging between Rs 10,000 to Rs 12,000 would be a more reasonable estimate. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicant, deeming it just and fair.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Revision petition.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: Ms. Jasvindar Mazumdar

For the Respondent: Ms. Alpana Verma

Case No.: Cr. Revision No.946 of 2022

Case Title: Ram Kumar Ravi vs State of Jharkhand & Anr.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 14

Click here to Read/ Download Judgment