Satbir vs Om Pati

A.S. Nehra, J.—This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 28-10-1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak by which Om Pati respondent has been granted maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C.

Om Pati filed a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner alleging that the parties of this case were married to each other on 20-6-1978 and they lived as wife and husband till July, 1985 when Om Pati was deserted by the petitioner. Om Pati got the marriage dissolved on the ground of cruelty and as such a decree of divorce was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 20-10-1986. The further case of Om Pati is that Satbir petitioner is a rich landlord having more than 100 bighas of land, tractor, cattle etc. and his monthly income from all sources is, thus, Rs. 5,000/-. Om Pati claimed herself to be not doing any work. She has alleged that she neither owns nor possesses wither movable or immovable property and wholly depends upon her brothers, therefore, she claimed maintenance in the sum of Rs. 500/- per mensum from the petitioner from the date of the institution of the petition. Satbir petitioner filed the written statement denying the allegations of Om Pati. He took up the plea that Om Pati was not his legally wedded wife. He has alleged that his first wife Krishna is still alive and that marriage still subsists. According to a Satbir, Om Pati has levelled false allegations against him. Satbir further averred that Om Pati was owning movable and immovable property and she earns about Rs. 2,000/- per mensum from all sources. The Trial Court dismissed the application filed by Om Pati on 19-5-1992.

Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that first wife of the petitioner Smt. Krishna is still alive and that marriage between Krishna and Satbir petitioner still subsists, therefore, petition filed by the respondent is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

While perusing the evidence of the parties, it is found that Om Pati PW 1 stated in her Examination-in-Chief that Satbir had contracted another marriage and that is why she has been residing separately for the last about four years. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that Smt. Krishna with whom the petitioner was earlier married before her marriage with him, is still alive. Raghbir Singh PW 2 also admitted in his cross-examination that Satbir was earlier married with Smt. Krishna. From all this, it became evident that Satbir was earlier married with Krishna before he entered into marriage with Om Pati. Satbir PW1 in his statement has stated that his earlier marriage with Smt. Krishna took place when he was about 8-9 years old and even no consummation of marriage took place. This marriage with Krishna has not been proved by the petitioner to be legal and valid marriage in the eyes of law. While perusing the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, it has been noticed that a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty was granted to Om Pati.

It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge cannot be taken into consideration. The judgment and decree of the Matrimonial Court though not exhibited, yet it cannot be ignored because it is a judgment in rem and it is binding upon the parties. A copy of the petition for dissolution of marriage Ex. R-2 is one record which shows that Om Pati took up the ground of cruelty in it. The Matrimonial Court while deciding the petition came to the conclusion that Satbir petitioner has treated Om Patti with cruelty. The judgment of learned Additional District Judge can be taken into consideration because it is binding upon the parties. It has become apparent from the judgment dated 22-10-1986 that the marriage between Om Pati and Satbir was considered to be legal and valid and that is why a decree of divorce u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was passed. When there is a decree and judgment of the Matrimonial Court, the marriage between Om Pati and Satbir cannot be held to be illegal marriage. There is no evidence on record to hold that the earlier marriage of Satbir with Krishna was a legal marriage.

Under the circumstances, in my opinion there was no legal marriage between Krishna and Satbir. There is no evidence on the record to prove that the ceremonies of a Hindu Marriage as required u/s 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act were duly performed when the alleged marriage of Satbir took place with Krishna. Under the circumstances, the status between the parties determined by the Matrimonial Court regarding the legal marriage of Om Pati with Satbir will have to be given due weight and the status of wife and husband will have to be looked into in the instant case. Satbir PW 1 has admitted in his cross-examination that the decree of divorce was passed against him in the matrimonial case filed by Om Pati. This shows that the decree of divorce dated 22-10-1986 was passed about which Satbir petitioner is fully aware though in order to avoid maintenance he took up the plea that the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge dated 22-10-1986 cannot be taken into consideration because the same has not been exhibited in the case. Om Pati was thus rightly granted maintenance u/s 125 Cr. P.C.

In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.