Vikram Singh Smt. vs Suman Bai

Rajendra Kumar Srivastava J

This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 19(4) of Family Court Act 1984 r/w Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. to set-aside the order dated 04.05.2017 passed in MJC No. 360/16 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Khandwa whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application under Section 127 r/w 126 (2) of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant.

Case of the applicant is that respondent/wife filed a petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. before Nyayik Adhikari, Gram Nyayalay, Khandwa to get maintenance from the applicant. Nyayik Adhikari, Gram Nyalaya, Khandwa allowed the petition, which was registered, as MJC No. 55/10 on being presented by respondent/wife, and awarded maintenance of Rs. 900/- per month to her paid by the applicant. Applicant could not appear in this case so, Nyayik Adhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Khandwa passed the ex-parte order. When this fact came to the knowledge of the applicant then he filed a petition under Section 127 r/w Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Khandwa to set-aside the order dated 11.01.2011 but after hearing both the parties learned Judge has affirmed the order dated 11.01.2011.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that respondent is the wife of the applicant but it is alleged by him that she is living adulterous life with one Bukhar Singh. She is residing with Bukhar Singh since 2006 and he is taking care of her. He further submits that applicant is aged about 60 years. He is suffering from illness and is having no source of income. He is dependent upon his son. Respondent/wife has left matrimonial home without any reason since 2006. So, no case is made out to get maintenance from the applicant to the respondent. Applicant did not put up his case before Gram Nyayalaya so, in this circumstance when respondent-wife is living adulterous life with one Bukhar Singh and he is also taking care of her. So, she is not entitled for maintenance. Applicant is infirmed person so there is change in circumstances, so order dated 11.01.2011 passed by learned Gram Nyayalaya, Khandwa be set-aside.

Respondent/wife appeared before learned trial Court. She filed a reply where she alleged that applicant did not appear before Gram Nyayalaya Khandwa although notice has been served upon him so, ex-parte order was passed. Applicant knowingly not appeared before Gram Nyayalya, Khandwa. Applicant has left respondent without any reasonable cause. Respondent is not living adulterous life so, there is no change of circumstances hence, petition be dismissed.

Heard counsel for the applicant and perused the record. It is admitted fact that respondent is wife of the applicant. The marriage of respondent was solemnized with applicant 40 years ago and they are blessed with five children, one son and four daughters. All the four daughters have got married and the son is unmarried. Respondent is living separately from the applicant. Kokila (PW-1) and Kripa Bai (PW-2) are the daughters of the applicant and respondent. Kokila (PW-1) and Kripa Bai (PW-2) deposed before the Family Court that respondent is living with Bukhar Singh, as his wife since 2006 but learned trial court did not appreciate this piece of evidence and written in his order which is quoted as under:-

"10. तर्क के दौरान विद्वान आवेदक अधिवकता श्री रजनीश सोनी का कहना था कि आवेदक और अनावेदक की पुत्री कह रही है कि सुमनबाई और बुखारसिंग पति पत्नि के रूप में रह रहे हैं। सुमनबाई और पुत्रियां जो आवेदक साक्षी के रूप में उपस्थित है के बीच कोई रंजिस नहीं है वे झूठ क्यों बोलेंगी अतः यह माना जाये कि सुमन बाई जारता में रह रही है परंतु उभयपक्ष के अभिवचन और साक्ष्य के आधार पर जारता प्रमाणित नहीं मानी जा सकती। जारता के लिये विश्वसनीय दस्तावेजी प्रमाण देना होगा साथ ही विश्वसनीय मौखिक प्रमाण देना होगा केवल यह कह देने से कि पति-पत्नि के रूप में रह रहे है जबकि कोई छायाचित्र या दस्तावेजी प्रमाण नहीं है। जारता नहीं माजी जा सकती। किसी व्यकित् के साथ रहना अलग बात है लेकिन पति-पत्नि के संबंध बनाकर रहना अलग बात है। उस संबंध में साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत कहनी होगी। जारता का आरोप सिद्ध होने पर किसी महिला पुरूष के चरित्र पर दाग लग सकता है ऐसी स्थिति में हल्के से इस साक्ष्य को स्वीकार नहीं किया जा सकता। जहां तक पुत्रियां क्यों ऐसा कहेंगी का प्रश्न  है तो पुत्रियों की साक्ष्य भी तस्तार से नहीं कराई गई है। यदि कोई व्यक्ति कह रहा है कि पति-पत्नि के रूप में रह रहे है तो उसे यह बताना पडेगा कि सामने वाले का कृत्य और आचरण किस प्रकार का था जिसके आधार पर पति-पत्नि का निष्कर्ष निकाला गया। जारता का आरोप लगाने में विसतार से कृत्य बताने हागें जिससे न्यायालय यह तय कर सके कि जारता का कर्म हुआ है या महिलाश्जारता का जीवन जी रही है।

So, it is evident that the daughters of applicant and respondent deposed before the trial court that respondent/wife is living with one Bukhar Singh, as his wife since 2006. It is admitted fact that applicant and respondent did not took divorce from each other but learned trial court disbelieved this piece of evidence that evidence of daughters of applicant and respondent is not clear. Learned trial court held that these witnesses did not depose about the act and conduct of the respondent. Thus, it is not evident how daughters of both parties found that respondent-wife is wife of one Bukhar Singh and it is also not found how respondent is living adulterous life but it is the bounden duty of the trial court that if there is any ambiguity in the evidence of the witnesses then trial court shall clarify that ambiguity. Learned trial court did not dismiss any petition on the basis of any ambiguity in the evidence of the witnesses when the witnesses told all the facts before the trial court so, in these circumstances, this petition is allowed and order dated 04.05.2017 is hereby set-aside and case is remanded back to the trial court for re-examination of already examined witnesses and for examination of other witnesses on this point. Learned trial court is free to ask any question from the witnesses in this regard and both parties are also free to produce any other evidence in this regard. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 14.07.2020 for aforesaid proceeding.

Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed.