Siddanna vs Suvarna

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petitioner is the respondent before the Family Court, Vijaypur in Crl. Mis. 459/2012 which was filed seeking maintenance by the respondent herein. The said petition was allowed on 20.08.2013 granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month directing the petitioner herein to pay the said maintenance from the date of the petition till her re-marriage if any.

For the purpose of convenience, I would like to retain the ranks of the parties as per the ranks before the Trial Court.

Smt. Suvarna, the petitioner before the Trial Court has approached for grant of maintenance u/s. 125 of Cr.P.C. It is her case that the respondent is her husband and their marriage was solemnized about 25 years back prior to the filing of the petition at Shri Amasidda Temple of Gonasagi village as per the customs prevailing in their religion. After the marriage, she went to the house of the respondent and lived there with him. After two years of the wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter by name Kum. Kannavva. Now she is also married and residing in the house of her husband at Avatal in Athani Taluk. The petitioner after the marriage, for about 10 years, she lived with her husband. Thereafter, the respondent, addicted to bad habits and demanded the petitioner to get property from her parental house. In this regard, there arose differences between the husband and the wife and thereafter, it appears, the husband drew her away from his house. She went to her parental house, where her father looked after her till his death. It is stated that the respondent is having landed property and also fetching annual income of Rs. 5 lakh and he has been raring 50 sheep and doing sheep business and getting monthly income of Rs. 50,000/- and etc. The wife is unable to maintain herself and due to the neglect and refusal by the respondent to maintain her, the petition came to be filed.

The respondent appeared before the Court and strenuously contested the petition and even disputed the very relationship of husband and wife. It is the specific contention of the respondent that there was no marriage between himself and the petitioner and he also disputed the paternity of Smt. Kannavva as alleged by the petitioner. Therefore, he claims for dismissal of the petition.

On the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court has formulated two important points which are as follows:

(1) Whether the petitioner proves that, she is the wife of the respondent?

(2) If so, whether the petitioner being the wife is neglected and refused by the respondent to maintain her, in spite of he having sufficient means?

(3) Whether the petitioner is able to maintain herself?

(4) To what maintenance, the petitioner is entitled, if any.?"

The petitioner in order to prove her case examined herself as PW 1 and got examined three other witnesses as P.Ws. 2 to 4 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P6. The respondent examined himself as RW 1. After going through the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court tentatively arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has established the relationship between herself and the respondent and therefore awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month which order is now challenged by the respondent - husband.

Of course, there is a specific denial of relation ship by the respondent - husband. It is the fundamental principle of the Criminal Jurisprudence that particularly u/s. 125 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner who approaches the Court need not prove the marriage, in strict manner, proof of marriage is not required to be established before the Criminal Court as it is absolutely necessary in civil cases. If the Court is satisfied on the basis of the materials on record that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is established as that of husband and wife, even to the extent that they lived as husband and wife, that itself is sufficient to grant maintenance. Therefore, the Court has to satisfy itself whether on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced before the Court to come to a tentative conclusion for a limited purpose, that the said materials are sufficient to hold the relationship between the parties tentatively so as to award maintenance.

In this background, as could be seen from the records, the petitioner who examined herself as PW 1 has categorically stated that her marriage with respondent took place about 25 years ago and she lived along with her husband for a period of 10 years and she begot a child through the respondent named Kannavva and is also now married.

In the course of cross-examination, it is elicited as to how the marriage has been occurred though it does not in a detail manner stated in the examination in chief. Though ultimately it was denied by way of suggestion. It is also stated by her that at the time of marriage, Smt. Revanasiddawwa, Smt. Kamalawwa Pujari, Mr. Revanasiddappa Pujari, Mr. Dasharath Pawar, Mr. Guruling Gondalagi and Mr. Amoghi Biradar and others of the village were actively participated in the marriage rituals. It is also stated that at the time of marriage one Ramu, Kavi, Narasanagouda Patil, Basugouda Patil and Dundappa Pujari and Ramayya Swamy were also present and there was a document recorded with regard to the marriage, but it was with her father and he is now no more and she does not have the copy of the said document. She has also stated that after the birth of Kannavva, she was admitted to the school and the name of the respondent found a place as father of Kannavva in her school records. It is suggested that such information was given to the school by her brother in order to create a document with deliberate intention. It is very difficult to understand as to how this petitioner could anticipate that she would file maintenance petition after lapse of 25 years against her husband and therefore, she has to create a document even much earlier to the filing of the petition because this document Ex. P1 is the SSLC Marks card and Ex. P2 is the TC which are according to the petitioner establish that the name of the respondent was given as father of the petitioner''s daughter Kannavva. It is also suggested that these documents which are produced before the Court are false documents. But no materials have been produced to show that these public documents how could be concocted, which are of the and litigatum period. Therefore, at this stage, these documents cannot be doubted as false and concocted documents.

PW 2 one Mr. Guruling Gondali, aged about 61 years, one of the Senior Members of the said village, has stated that about 25 years prior to the filing of the petition, the petitioner''s marriage took place with the respondent in Sri Amoghasiddeshwar Temple of Gonasagi village and he was present at that time of marriage. He has categorically stated about the ceremonies observed by the bride and bridegroom at the time of marriage. Further, added to that, he has also stated that the petitioner lived with her husband for some time and begot one female child by name Kannavva.

In the course of cross-examination, it is suggested to this witness that the marriage was not taken place as stated by this witness. Though he has stated that he cannot say as to when and on what day and after how many days after the marriage, Suvarna went to the respondent and he cannot also say on what date, she delivered female child etc. But the Court is not required to mathematically examine the evidence, but on overall analyzing and understanding the witnesses has to come to a tentative conclusion.

Another witnesses by name Amoghi Biradar - PW 3 aged 90 years has also stated that her marriage has taken place about 25 years prior to the filing of the petition in Sri Amoghasiddeshwar Temple of Gonasagi village and he was also present on that particular point of time and he says that he does not remember the name of her husband. But, nevertheless, it clearly goes to show that these two witnesses who are the senior most members of the village have stated that the marriage of this lady took place about 25 years prior to the filing of the petition. When some acceptable materials are placed before the Court to discharge the burden of the petitioner, it shifts the burden on to the respondent to prove that she is not the wife of the respondent.

In the evidence of RW 1 in one sentence he denied the relationship of husband and wife and he never made any attempts to say anything about the witnesses evidence and also the evidence of the petitioner and the documents produced by her when and how those documents are concocted etc. Therefore, in my opinion, such casual evidence of the respondent is not sufficient to disprove the case of the petitioner tentatively proved by her for the purpose of claiming maintenance.

In the above said circumstances, I absolutely find no room to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. The negligence or refusal by the respondent need not be proved because once the relationship is denied and relationship is proved to the satisfaction of the Court, that itself amounts to refusal on the part of the respondent. On the other hand, it is not the case of the respondent that he has made any arrangements regarding any maintenance to her at any point of time because he totally denied the relationship itself.

Looking from any angle, in my opinion, the Trial Court has not committed any error in coming to such a conclusion.

Even the respondent is at liberty to approach the civil Court to seek for a declaration that the petitioner is not his wife. In the event of getting the decree in his favour he is at liberty to approach the Court for modification of the order passed by the Trial Court granting maintenance to the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any strong reasons to differ from the opinion expressed by the Trial Court.

So far as the quantum is concerned, in my opinion, though the petitioner has not produced any material to show the exact income of the husband, nevertheless, in the circumstances of the case and considering the present cost of living, an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as awarded by the Trial Court is a minimum requirement of a person to live in the society which cannot be at any stretch of imagination said to be exorbitant. Therefore, the order in any manner does not require interference at the hands of this Court.

Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed.