Girishkumar Parmanand Shah vs Sudarshan @ Kalpana Shah and Others

A.P. Shah, J.—These two criminal revision applications arise out of proceedings u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). Briefly stated, the facts are that Girishkumar, who is the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 596 of 1988 married the respondent Sudarshana alias Kalpana on 7th June, 1983 under the provision of the Special marriage Act, 1954. Soon after the marriage, disputes arose between the parties. In short, the version of Sudarshana is that after the marriage, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law started ill-treating her as she failed to bring cash and gold ornaments as demanded by the. The husband also was pressing her to bring money from her parents Sudarshana, she was not in a position to bring the cash or the gold ornaments or bring money for the purchase of a new flat. Therefore, she was ill-treated, particularly, by their mother-in-law and sister-in-law. She was even denied food. She was often beaten by her in-laws. On 30th March, 1984 she was beaten by the in-laws and therefore she filed a complaint at the Kandivli Police Station. On the next day she was driven out of the house and since then she has been residing at the house of her brothers at Murbad. During her stay at Murbad, she delivered a child and this news was communicated to Girishkumar but he did not even turn up to see the child.

On other hand, Girishkumar''s version is that his wife was continuously sick and mentally disturbed. Her behaviour was abnormal. On 31st March, 1984 she received a severe mental attack and she started acting aggressively with him and then she left the house on her own accord. The paternity of the child is also seriously disputed by the husband.

In 1985 Sudarshana filed application u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. claiming maintain at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month for herself and Rs. 300/- per month for the son. She, inter alia, averred in the application that all along she was ill-treated and finally driven out of the house on 31st March, 1984. She stated that she has no means to maintain herself. On the other hand the husband is working as a lecturer in Government Technical College and his income is about Rs. 10,000/ - per month. She therefore prayed for award of maintenance for herself and the son.

In contesting the application Girishkumar filed his reply at exhibit 6. He contended that his marriage was void ab initio as Sudarshana was earlier married and that marriage had not been legally dissolved. He denied all the allegations of treatment and cruelty. He alleged that his wife is sick and mentally disturbed. He challenged the paternity of the child. He contended that Sudarshana is educated and capable to earn her livelihood. He also contended that she is working in some women''s organisation and is also a L.I.C. agent and earning about Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- per month. He further contended that she receives interest from the amount of fixed deposit of Rs. 7000/- and that she has a share on her father''s property. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application.

The learned II Joint Judicial Magistrate, Kalyan by his judgment and order dated 28th October, 1986 held inter alia that Sudarshana is the legally wedded wife of Girishkumar. The learned Magistrate also cone to the conclusion that Girishkumar had refused and neglected to maintain the wife and the son. The learned Magistrate further held that the applicant is unable to maintain herself and, therefore, awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month to the wife and Rs. 150A per month to the son.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate dated 28th October, 1986 awarding maintenance to the wife and the son, Girishkumar filed Criminal Revision Application No. 171 of 1986 in the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Thane. After hearing both the parties, learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge held that the marriage was invalid u/s 4(a) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The learned Judge observed that it is an admitted fact that the first husband of Sudarshana is still alive and since her previous marriage was not legally dissolved, thereby the provisions of Section 4(a) to the Special Marriage Act, 1954 are attracted and therefore her second marriage with Girishkumar is void ab initio. The learned Magistrate further observed that the defence of the wife that there was a custom in the Jain community was not proved by her by leading any evidence. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the wifes is not entitled to maintenance. So far as claim or maintenance of the child is concerned, the learned Judge observed that the son was born on 17th November, 1984 and according to the respondent wife she was driven out of the house on 31st March, 1984 and therefore it is clear that when both of them were residing together as husband and wife, she became pregnant and she delivered the child in the month of November, 1984. Hence, it can be presumed that he is a legitimate son. The learned Judge also observed that the fact that the husband is denying the paternity of the child itself is sufficient ground to prove that he is neglecting or refusing to maintain the child and on that ground he confirmed the direction for grant of maintenance to the child at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month.

Aggrieved by the decision of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, dated 11th April, 1988, the husband has filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 596 of 988. The wife has filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 845 of 1988 challenging the order of reversing the maintenance order in her favour.

So far as Criminal writ Petition No. 596 of 1988 is concerned, there is a concurrent finding of fact that the father Girishkumar is liable to provide maintenance to his son. While dealing with this issue, the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge observed:

As per the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. legitimate or illegitimate child also entitled for maintenance from the father having sufficient means, and it is proved that such a child is unable to maintain itself. There is no dispute about the fact that the marriage took place between the applicant and opponent No. 2 in the year 1983. It is also an admitted fact that since May, 1983 they were residing together as husband and wife. From the record it seems that opponent No. 3 born on 17.11.1984 and according to opponent No. 2 she was driven out from the house of applicant on 31.3.1984. Hence, it is clear that when both of them were residing together as husband and wife she became pregnant from the applicant and she delivered opponent No. 3 in the month of November, 1984 hence it can be presumed that opponent No. 2. When I hold that opponent No. 3 is son of applicant and opponent No. 3 is son of applicant No. 1 it is necessary to see whether applicant is refusing or neglecting to maintain his son. From the evidence it is clear that applicant is denying paternity of opponent No. 3 This ground itself is sufficient to proceed that he is neglecting of refusing to maintain his son. It is true that it has come on record that applicant is dismissed from Government service. Still it is bounded duty of the father to maintain his legitimate or illegitimate child.

I am in full agreement with the view expressed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge. I do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the learned Judge. Mr. Parkar, however, contended that there is no positive evidence to show that there is no positive evidence to show that the son was born on 17th November, 1984 and, therefore, the lower Courts were not right in raising presumption in favour of legitimacy. The argument is required to be stated only to be rejected. Both the Courts have believed the oral evidence of the wife Sudarshana that she delivered the child on 17th November, 1984. It is not possible for me in revisional jurisdiction to take a differing view. Hence, Criminal Application No. 596 of 1988 is hereby rejected.

Now turning to Criminal Writ Petition No. 845 of 1988, it is seen that factum of marriage is not disputed by the husband. However, it was his case that the marriage was void ab initio as the wife Sudarshana was earlier married and that marriage had not been legally dissolved. On the other hand, the wife pleaded that the marriage was dissolved according to the custom prevailing in the Jain community. According to Sudarshana, she obtained divorce from her first husband according to the custom prevailing in the Jain community. She produced on record a writing on a stamp paper recording divorce between her and her first husband Bharat Kumar. She also relied upon the certificate of marriage showing her status as divorcee. The learned Magistrate accepted the case of the wife and awarded maintenance at the rate off Rs. 200/ per month. The question is whether the Sessions Court was right in interfering was the order of the learned Magistrate. Mr. Apte, learned Counsel appearing for the wife brought to my notice the decision of Kantharia, J. in Malan v. Balasaheb 1988 Mh. L.J. 1135. In that case it was held that the proceedings u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. are in the nature of summary proceedings. By providing a simple and speedy remedy the Legislature has provided for a limited relief for the neglected wives, children and parents. Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is not intended to provide for a full and final determination of the status and personal rights of the parties. A woman whose marriage is void cannot get the status of a legally wedded wife and is not entitled to maintenance u/s 125 of the Code. The learned Judge further held that it is important to bear in mind that in such proceedings all that the wife has to prove is the performance of certain marriage ceremonies and it is immaterial whether the same satisfy all the requirements of a valid marriage. The party who challenges the validity of the marriage has to establish it in a competent Civil Court. Keeping in mind the aforesaid observations made by the learned Judge, I do not think that the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge was right in reversing the order of maintenance. The wife has specifically pleaded that she look divorce from her first husband according to the custom prevailing in Jain community. The parties have already approached the Civil Court for appropriate relief. In these circumstances, there was no need to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate awarding maintenance to the wife since the rights will have to be determined by the Civil Court in accordance with law. In the result, Criminal Writ Petition No. 845 of 1988 is allowed. The impugned order of the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge dated 11th April, 1988 is set aside and that of the learned Magistrate dated 28th October, 1986 is restored.

In view of the disposal of the main matters, Criminal Application Nos. 3171 and 3172 of 1995 are rejected.

Certified copy expedited.