Vasudev C.M. vs Asha

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The petitions coming on for admission, are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner is said to be the husband of the respondent. It transpires that the respondent had filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Cr P.C.'', for brevity). However, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the respondent had filed a complaint for an offence punishable under Section 498-A and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''the IPC'', for brevity). Incidentally, she had also sought for relief''s under the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Domestic Violence Act'', for brevity) and it transpires that the court below had directed the present petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as monthly maintenance to the respondent. The same was hotly contested by the petitioner, whereby the very relationship was denied and it was claimed that there was no marriage whatsoever between the petitioner and the respondent and that the alleged marriage claimed was forced on him and he was compelled to tie a ''thali'' in the middle of the night at 11.45 p.m. on 6.12.2002 at the instance of several villagers. Whereas, the invitation card which was also produced as evidence of the wedding, had indicated that the wedding had taken place on 6.12.2002 at 9.30 to 10.25 a.m.

This being a primary contention, the Trial Court had negated the same and appeals were preferred both by the respondent and the petitioner. The petitioner had questioned the award of maintenance on the footing that the relationship of husband and wife was seriously disputed and the respondent had filed the appeal claiming enhancement of maintenance. The Appellate Court has in turn dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner and has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent, enhancing the maintenance to Rs. 6,000/- per month and in addition, directed the present petitioner to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards her further higher education. It is these judgments which are sought to be questioned in the present petitions.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the very relationship being in serious dispute, it was necessary for the respondent to have established that they had at least lived together as husband and wife. In the face of nebulous evidence as regards the status of marriage, it was impermissible for the courts below to have arrived at a finding that there was a valid marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and that he was obliged to provide maintenance, apart from paying additional amounts as directed.

The petitioner claims to have been trained as a Sanskrit Scholar to propagate the Hindu Dharma abroad and he was living in the United States of America for five years and had returned to India in the year 2002 and it is the case of the petitioner that several of the villagers wanted to extract money from him and since the petitioner resisted any such demands, a plot was engineered to claim that he had married the respondent and had failed to maintain her. The respondent who was said to be a holder of a Bachelor''s degree in Nursing, had intended to go abroad for employment and thought that the petitioner v/as a vehicle whom she could use to further her ambition and therefore, the plot had been engineered. It is with great difficulty that the petitioner had extricated himself from the situation and had lodged a police complaint in this regard and is said to have also filed a civil suit to claim that the alleged marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was null and void. In that background, the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that when it is primarily not established that the respondent was married to petitioner and that they had lived together as husband and wife, the very basis on which the relief could be granted under the Domestic Violence Act is taken away, as laid down in several decisions of the Apex Court and therefore would contend that the petitions be considered on merits.

However, it is to be noticed from the decisions of both the courts below that the claim that the petitioner was forcibly married to the respondent is not evident from the conduct of the petitioner. In that, the marriage is said to have taken place in the year 2002 and the respondent had claimed maintenance even as early as in the year 2003 on the footing that the petitioner had neglected her. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner having chosen to file a civil suit claiming the relief of declaration that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was null and void and that there was no relationship of husband and wife, was curiously filed only in the year 2008. This is a circumstance which both the courts below have held, is not the expected conduct of a man who was forced into an illegal marriage and had held that the defence taken was only to avoid the liability and has therefore granted the relief of maintenance and other expenses to the respondent.

It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that insofar as the civil suit seeking declaration of her status is concerned, according to his instructions, it has been dismissed. However, he is not sure of the ground on which the suit has been dismissed and therefore, seeks time to at least ascertain the grounds on which the suit has been dismissed.

This is irrelevant. If there was such a suit and if that was dismissed and even if an appeal had been filed, the same will take its course. Insofar as the claim for maintenance, the courts below having granted the same on the presumption that the petitioner and the respondent were husband and wife, shall continue to operate. If the petitioner should succeed in the pending appeal insofar as the status of the marital relationship is concerned, the consequence shall be that he would no longer be liable to pay maintenance, if such marriage is declared to be void. Therefore, on merits, there is little that this Court finds as a ground for interference in the face of the circumstances narrated. It is evident that the petitioner had apparently led the respondent up the garden path and had refused to marry her at the last minute and was possibly forced to marry her, is besides the point. The fact that there was an apparent relationship of husband and wife has been found by both the courts below.

Hence, there is no merit in these petitions and the same are rejected.