Case title:
Kamala and Others Vs. M.R Mohan Kumar
Date of Order:
October 24 2018
Bench:
Justice R Banumathi
BRIEF FACTS
- These appeals pertain to the judgment issued by the High Court of Karnataka in R.P.F.C. Nos. 103 of 2008 and 21 of 2009. The High Court overturned the family court's decision, which had ordered the respondent to provide maintenance to the appellants (wife and children).
- Appellant No.1 and the respondent entered a marriage against their parents' wishes on 18.07.1998 Appellant No.2 (daughter) and appellant No.3 (son) were born from this marriage on 09.05.2001 and 18.07.2003, respectively. The appellants assert that while the marriage was intact, the respondent married another woman named Archana, his colleague, on 01.04.2005. Subsequently, the appellants were neglected by the respondent, and he subjected appellant No.1 to harassment.
- The appellants filed a Criminal Miscellaneous No.297/2006 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for themselves and their children from the respondent. The respondent argued that there was no valid marriage between the parties
- The family court, based on the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 (Co-employee and house owner respectively), concluded that the appellants lived together and were recognized by society as husband and wife. Consequently, the family court granted the appellants' claim, ordering maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month for appellant No.1 and Rs.2,500/- per month for each of the appellants No.2 and 3 from the petition date until the judgment date of 12.08.2008. Starting from the judgment date, the respondent was instructed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to each of the appellants No.1 to 3.
- However, the HC, in its appeal, overturned the family court's decision, stating that appellant No.1 failed to prove her legal marriage to the respondent. The High Court further noted the absence of evidence demonstrating a customary marriage, and as a result, appellant No.1, not being the legally wedded wife, was deemed ineligible for maintenance.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the marriage between the respondent and appellant no. 1 was valid?
- Could the disputed1st wife demand maintenance for herself and her children under Section 125 of CrPC?
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
1) Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provides a legal provision for maintenance of wives, children, and parents who are unable to support themselves financially. It allows individuals to file an application before a magistrate seeking monthly maintenance from their spouse, children, or parents. The magistrate has the authority to pass an order for maintenance, considering the applicant's needs and the respondent's ability to provide support.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT(s)
- The counsel for the appellants argued that when parties live together as husband and wife, there is a presumption of a valid marriage.
- In this case, the appellants claimed they were married, lived together, and had children, which created a presumption in favour of appellant No.1.
- The counsel contended that the respondent failed to rebut this presumption. The family court found appellant No.1 to be the legally wedded wife and appellants No.2 and 3 to be their children.
- The High Court, however, should not have interfered with these factual findings during its revisional jurisdiction.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- Mr. M.N. Rao, the respondent's counsel, contended that appellant No.1 is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. as she is not a legally wedded wife.
- He argued that no valid marriage existed between the parties based on the evidence presented. Therefore, the High Court correctly reversed the family court's maintenance order.
- Citing the case of Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and another (1988) 1 SCC 530, the respondent's counsel argued in support of his contention.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- PW-1 highlighted the respondent's neglect and illicit re-marriage, which left her and the children unsupported, leading to her petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
- Appellant No.1 presented exhibits P1 to P20 as evidence to establish her marriage and claim which included photographs, birth certificates of the children, complaint copies, maintenance receipts, and other documents.
- Additionally, PW-2, an employee who worked with appellant No.1, testified that the respondent would drop and pick her up and that they appeared to be living happily as husband and wife. The house owner (PW-3) confirmed that appellant No.1 and the respondent rented a house, representing themselves as a married couple.
- Unlike matrimonial proceedings that require strict proof of marriage, proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. have a lower standard of proof. The court emphasized that an order under Section 125 does not determine the rights and obligations of the parties, but rather provides a summary remedy for neglected wives to obtain maintenance. In such cases, maintenance cannot be denied if there is evidence indicating that the parties lived together.
- The Supreme Court has held that the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have lived together for a long time. This is supported by the cases of Sastry Velaider Aronegary v. Sembecutty Vaigalie (1881), Andrahennedige Dinohamy v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy (1927) etc.
- In the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, the court held that the term "wife" in Section 125 does not include a woman not lawfully married, and only the legislature can amend this limitation. The evidence provided by PW-1, along with the birth certificates of appellants No.2 and 3, clearly establishes the existence of a valid marriage.
- It was noted that in proceedings under Section 125, strict proof of marriage is not required, and the High Court failed to consider this while reassessing the evidence and substituting its own views on the findings of fact.
- Therefore, appellant No.1, as the wife, and appellants No.2 and 3, as the children, were entitled to claim maintenance and were granted the right to approach the family court for a potential increase in the maintenance amount.
