N. Sujatha vs K. Nagaraj

A. Ramamurthi, J.—The revision petitioner/wife has preferred the revision aggrieved against the dismissal of M.C. No. 33 of 1995 by the

learned Family Judge, Coimbatore dated 9-7-1997.

The case in brief is as follows :

The petitioner filed an application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondent claiming maintenance. It is the case of the

petitioner that her marriage with the respondent took place on 16-4-1992 in the presence of relations and friends at ""Sakthi Vinayagar Temple"" at:

Coimbatore Collectorate. According to her, both of them were lovers prior to the marriage and with the consent of both families, the marriage was

performed. After the marriage she lived in the house of the respondent for 30 days and on 20-5-1992, without any reason, she was ill-treated and

sent out of the house and as such, she is now residing with her parents. She has to income to maintain herself. The respondent is employed in the

transport Corporation. There is already another criminal case in CC No. 711 of 1992 between the parties. She was ill-treated by the respondent

as well as his men. She was subsequently beaten up and ""Thali"" was also snatched and driven out of the house. The respondent had relationship

with other women and the petitioner came to know about it only later. In May 1992 at Kamarajapuram a panchayat was also conducted and the

respondent agreed to take her back, but did not comply with the same. He is drawing a salary of Rs. 2500/- per month and also doing cloth

business and earing about Rs. 2500/- per month. He has got own house.

The respondent opposed the application and denied the marriage. There was no marriage between the parties on 16-4-1992. The time of

marriage has not been specifically stated by the petitioner. He also denied that they were lovers and other allegations made by her relating to the

harassment. He never tied ""Thali"" or snatched the same at a later point of time. She had left the home on her own accord after writing a letter that

she did not want to live with him. She is employed in the Home Guard and also doing tailoring work and earning sufficient income and as such, she

can maintain herself. She gave a complaint before R.S. Puram Police Station and the police only compelled him to live with the petitioner and

everything was arranged only by the petitioner and her son. Photographs were also taken in the police station on compulsion by the police. There is

no legal marriage between the parties and as such she is not a legally wedded wife entitled to claim maintenance. He has two sisters and also a

brother and he has to take care all of them.

On the side of the petitioner, P. Ws. 1 to 6 were examined and Exs. P1 to P7 were marked. On the side of the respondent he was examined as

P.W. 1 and Exs. R1 and R2 were marked. M.O. 1 relates to 5 colour photographs with 5 negatives taken in the police station at the time of

exchanging garlands. On the basis of the evidence, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that there was no legal marriage and dismissed the

maintenance petition filed by the wife and aggrieved against this, the present revision has been filed.

Heard the learned Counsel of both sides.

The points that arise for consideration are

1) Whether there was any valid marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on 16-4-1992?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any maintenance and if so, to what amount?

Points : - The petitioner/wife has filed the maintenance case against the respondent alleging that their marriage took place on 16-4-1992 in a

temple in the Collectorate at Coimbatore and photographs were also taken subsequently in the Police Station. She was residing in the house of the

respondent for a period of 35 days and thereafter she was driven out of the house. Even during the period or 35 days, she was ill-treated and

harassed by the respondent and his men and she admitted that she wrote a letter Ex. P. 3 and left the house that she does not want to live with him.

The respondent categorically denied the marriage with the petitioner and as such, the burden is only upon her to show that there was a valid

marriage and she is not entitled to get maintenance from the respondent.

The petitioner examined herself as P.W. 1 stating that both of them were lovers and travelled along with the respondent in motor cycle belonging

to him. The respondent also gave a letter promising to marry her. However, the marriage had not been performed and as such, a complaint was

given in the police station and they called both parties for enquiry. Admittedly the marriage between the parties was not registered and according to

P.W. 1 since the respondent was not having proof for the age, the marriage was not registered. On the side of the respondent, except him, his

mother was also present in the police station as seen from the photographs. Number of witnesses have been examined on the side of the petitioner

to show that garlands were exchanged in front of the temple situated in the Collectorate at Coimbatore. The other ceremonies relating to the

marriage have not been performed. It has come cut in the evidence that after the complaint given to the police only on their instruction, they went to

the temple and garlands were exchanged. If the marriage was voluntary then there may not be any necessity for them to go back to the police

station again and take photographs. Simply because some photographs were filed and as they were taken in the police station itself it cannot be

concluded that there was a legal marriage between the parties. In fact, P.W. 1 is not bold enough to say that their marriage has been consummated

at a later point of this. There are varying versions in the evidence adduced on the side of the petitioner. Some of the witnesses stated that the

marriage was performed between 3.00 and 4.00 p.m. and some other witnesses stated as between 4.00 and 5.00 p.m. on 16-4-1992 the

marriage was performed P.W. 1 also admitted that they were not wearing new clothes at the time of the marriage. She further submitted that as per

the school records, she is elder than the respondent. In view of the conflicting testimony on the part: of the prosecution witnesses only, the Court

below came to the conclusion that there was no legal marriage between the parties.

It is also stated on'' behalf of the petitioner that there was a panchayat and in the panchayat, the respondent agreed''to take her, but he had not

followed the same. P.W. 4 is admittedly related to the petitioner. P.W. 6 is the Additional Superintendent in Central Prison, Coimbatore. A .letter

is said to have been written by the respondent, while he was in custody on the complaint given by the petitioner. Although the petitioner filed a

criminal complaint in C.C. No. 711 of; 1992, ultimately the respondent and his family members were found not guilty and acquitted, Ex. R1 is the

copy of the judgment and Ex. R2 is the certified copy of the letter filed in the case. After 35 days, she wrote a letter under Ex. P3 and left the

home. The entire case of the petitioner was that both of them were lowers and the marriage was also performed with the consent and blessings, of

both families. The statement of the petitioner could not be true in the light of the aforesaid materials.

It is quite probable that both of them could have travelled to several places and ultimately, the respondent might have hesitated to marry her

which necessitated the petitioner to give the complaint in the police station and it is apparently clear that due to the pressure and compulsion of the

police, the garlands were exchanged and ultimately photographs were taken inside the police station. This cannot be equated to a valid marriage

under law. She also admitted that both of them have not visited the house of anybody either for dinner or for other entertainments. When the

marriage putforth by the petitioner has not been substantiated, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is no valid marriage in

accordance with law.

learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Praya Dixit and Another, that where

claimant establishes that she and alleged husband live together as husband and wife, it was held a rebuttable presumption arises that they are

legalily married. Further, learned Counsel stated, as the application was filed u/s 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the order passed if any

does not finally determine the status, rights and obligations of the parties. The section only provides for maintenance of indigent wives, children and

parents. There is no dispute about this principle and it has no application to the case on hand. It is evidently clear that there is absolutely no

evidence to show that both of them lived together as husband and wife even after the alleged marriage and under the circumstances, this decision is

not applicable to the case on hand. In my view, the trial Court has rightly analysed the evidence of the witnesses and rightly came to the conclusion

that the marriage has not been proved and as such she is no entitled to claim any maintenance u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It

cannot be said that there is any error in appreciation of the evidence by the Courts below, calling for interference and the points are answered

accordingly.

For the reasons stated above, the revision petition fails and is dismissed.