Wife Failed to Prove Marriage No Maintenance to her

Jharkhand High Court

JUSTICE H.C. Mishra

Bula Roy Vs. State Of Jharkhand & Anr. On 16 July 2014

Law Point:
Failure of wife to prove her marriage with husband-OP No. 2 — Witnesses examined by petitioner have not proved rituals of marriage — No relative of petitioner examined — On the other hand, OP No. 2 able to prove marriage certificate showing that petitioner was married to another person — Finding of Court below that petitioner failed to prove her marriage with OP No. 2 and rejected application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. upheld.

JUDGEMENT

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. Opposite party No. 2 has not appeared in spite of service of notice upon him.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 26th April, 2001, passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Criminal Revision No. 46 of 1995/35 of 2000, whereby, revision application filed against the order dated 27.9.1995 passed by Mr. C.B. Dwivedi, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in Miscellaneous Case No. 10 of 1994/Trial No. 528 of 1995, rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been dismissed by the Revisional Court below.

3. The petitioner filed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of opposite party No. 2, stating that the marriage had taken place on 20.8.2012 at Kolkata and after the marriage she stayed with her husband, but she was being subjected to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry. There are allegations of assaults also and it is stated that ultimately the petitioner was driven out of her matrimonial home and she started living with her parents since the year 1993. Claiming that she had no means to maintain herself whereas her husband has sufficient means, she filed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., claiming the maintenance of Rs. 500 per month.

4. Upon notice, the opposite party No. 2 appeared in the Court below, objecting the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., and denying the marriage between the parties. The case of opposite party No. 2 is that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of another person whose name was also disclosed by opposite party No. 2.

5. It appears that both the parties entered into the evidence and two witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner, who were the petitioner and her father. They supported their case stating that the petitioner was married to opposite party No. 2 at Kolkata, in which, the Pandit and barber were arranged by the opposite party No. 2. Though it was deposed that other relatives of the petitioner also attended the marriage, but no relative of the petitioner was examined. The petitioner even could not disclose the place where she was married at Kolkata. It also appears from the impugned judgment that she produced a photograph, but the same could only be marked for identification and it could not be proved. Some other documents including a telegram were also exhibited by the petitioner, but they were not on the point of the marriage.

6. Opposite party No. 2 had also examined the witnesses in the Court below. He also proved the marriage certificate of the petitioner showing that she was married to another person. The witnesses examined on behalf of opposite party No. 2 had denied the marriage between the parties.

7. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Trial Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., finding that the petitioner could not prove her marriage with opposite party No. 2 whereas the opposite party No. 2 had been able to prove that the petitioner was married with another person. The revision filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Revisional Court below.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below cannot be sustained in the eye of law, inasmuch as the petitioner was able to prove the marriage between the parties, on the basis of the evidence on record. Learned Counsel has also prayed to bring certain documents on record, but in view of the fact that those documents were admittedly not available before the Court below, the same cannot be looked into.

9. Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below.

10. Upon going through the record, I find that both the Courts below have held that the petitioner had failed to prove her marriage with opposite party No. 2. Both the witnesses examined by the petitioner have only stated that the petitioner was married to opposite party No. 2, but they have not proved the rituals of marriage, which were required to be proved in view of the fact that the marriage between the parties was completely denied by opposite party No. 2. No relative of petitioner was examined though it was deposed that the marriage was also attended by the relatives. The petitioner could not say as to where she was married at Kolkata. On the other hand, opposite party No. 2 has been able to prove the marriage certificate showing that the petitioner was married to another person. On the basis of the evidence, the Court below has come to the conclusive finding that the petitioner has not been able to prove her marriage with opposite party No. 2, and accordingly, the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected.

11. I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment/order passed by the both Courts below. There is no merit in this criminal miscellaneous application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.

You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us