9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 1409 - SC - Indian LawsPresumption of marriage results into claiming of maintenance under Section 125,Cr.P.C. - Wider Interpretation of the term wife - HELD THAT - if man and woman have been living together for a long time even without a valid marriage, then term of valid marriage entitling such a woman to maintenance should be drawn and a woman should be entitled to maintain application under Section 125,Cr.P.C. On the other hand, in the present case, it was proved, by cogent and strong evidence, that they had been married to each other. Where a woman married a man with full knowledge of the first subsisting marriage then she must be aware that second marriage with such a person is impermissible and there is an embargo under the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore she has to suffer the consequences thereof. But, it would not apply to those cases where a man marries second time by keeping that lady in dark about the first surviving marriage. Court gave a purposive interpretation of Section 125,Cr.P.C by considering the application of destitute wife or hapless children or parents, the Court is dealing with the marginalized sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve social justice , enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. Preamble to the Constitution of India states that India has chosen the democratic path under rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. The decision of Capt.Ramesh Chander Kaushal vs. Veena Kaushal (1978) 4 SCC 70 For this reason, Court was not inclined to grant leave and dismiss this petition
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay 2. Maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) 3. Legality of Marriage and Maintenance Rights 4. Standard of Proof in Maintenance Cases 5. Interpretation of "Wife" under Section 125, Cr.P.C. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay: The Supreme Court condoned the delay of 63 days in filing and 11 days in refiling the Special Leave Petition (SLP) based on the reasons provided in the application for condonation. 2. Maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the High Court's judgment, which upheld the award of maintenance to respondent No.1 (wife) at Rs. 1,000 per month and to respondent No.2 (daughter) at Rs. 500 per month. The High Court and the lower courts had affirmed the maintenance awarded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) based on the respondents' application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. 3. Legality of Marriage and Maintenance Rights: The petitioner denied any matrimonial alliance with respondent No.1 and claimed that he was already married to another woman, Shobha, since 1979. He argued that respondent No.1 could not be his legally wedded wife during the subsistence of his first marriage. However, the courts found that the petitioner had intentionally suppressed his first marriage from respondent No.1 and cohabited with her, resulting in the birth of respondent No.2. The courts held that the petitioner could not deny maintenance to respondent No.1, taking advantage of his own wrong. 4. Standard of Proof in Maintenance Cases: The Supreme Court referred to the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 675, which held that the standard of proof of marriage in proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. is not as strict as in a trial for an offence under Section 494 of the IPC. The court can presume the parties are legally wedded spouses if they have lived together as husband and wife, and strict proof of performance of essential rites is not required in summary proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. 5. Interpretation of "Wife" under Section 125, Cr.P.C.: The Supreme Court emphasized a broad and expansive interpretation of the term "wife" under Section 125, Cr.P.C., to include cases where a man and woman have lived together as husband and wife for a long period. The court referred to Chanmuniya vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 141, which advocated for a wide interpretation to fulfill the true spirit of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125. The court held that the petitioner could not deny maintenance to respondent No.1, who was duped into marriage by the petitioner's false representation of being single. The court distinguished the present case from previous judgments like Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhay (1988) 1 SCC 530 and Savitaben Somabai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 3 SCC 636, which held that a woman married to a man with a living lawfully wedded wife could not claim maintenance. The court clarified that these judgments apply where the woman knowingly marries a man with a subsisting marriage, not where the man deceives the woman about his marital status. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the need for a purposive interpretation of Section 125, Cr.P.C., to achieve social justice. The court highlighted the importance of protecting the rights of destitute women and children, aligning with the Constitutional vision of justice, equality, and dignity. The court upheld the maintenance awarded to respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, reinforcing the principle that a man cannot take advantage of his own wrong to deny maintenance.
|
