.~’ ;g @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P. No. 483/2008 Petitioner Kashiram, S/o Pandru, aged about 28 (Non-applicant} years, R/o Village—Sirisguda, P.S. Lohandiguda, Distt. Bastar (C.G.). Versus Respondents 1. Applicant ‘ Parobai, D/Io Pedaram,'aged about 30 years, R/o Village Belar, RS. Lohandiguda, Distt. Bastar (C.G.). State of C.G., Through: District Magistrate, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.). ~ (SB :Hon’ble Mr. .P.Sharma, J.) T A G L. S Present:— Shri Prafull N. Bharat, dvocate for the petitioner. Shri Subhas Yadav, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri Ashish upta, P. for the tate/respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER s 19 n (Passed on 11/9/2009) Thi petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 73 (in short the code) is for quashment of the order dated 11/7/08 passed by Sessions Judge, Bastar in criminal revisio No. 12/08 affirming the order dated 8/1/08 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Fist Class, Bastar at Jagdalpur n Miscellaneous Criminal case No. 3/ 0 whereby and Where under learned Judicial Magistrate irst Class has awarded the maintenance of Rs. 700— per month to the respondent No. 1 on the gro that respondent No. 1 is legally wedded wife of the petitner, unable to maintain herself and petitioner having sufficient means is not maintaining her. 2. Quashment is prayed on the ground that respondent No. 1 is not a legally wedded wife of the petitioner and petitioner is not under obligation to maintain her but court below has illegally awarded the maintenance to the respondent. MISCELLANEOUS PETITION UIS 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. r i 2 5 F / und io "'2'- Brief facts giving rise to thi petition, respondent ha flied an plication for maintenance undo Section 125 of the Code o the ground that se is legally wedded wife of the peitioneri Petitioner has committed cruelty upon her and ousted rl She is unable to maintain herself. etitioner is having sufficient means but not maintaing r. Per contra petition s denied the obligation of the respodent No. 1 and has alleged thath has never married t respondent No. 1. He is leally wedded. with Sukhmat who i residing wh him. Pitioner is not eitled for ay maintenance. fter affording an opportunity of aring eae Judi Magistate First Class awarded maintenance of Rs; 00/— on the groud that respondent No. 1 is legally wedded Wif of the petitioner. Order was callenged in revision, revisional court has also affirmed th ore @ s s ap r n h t he P ni he er ha n e o g hi s it et nt n A he lrnd cial r 7 n e h e dr passed by the Judicial agitrate First Clss. i Learne counsel for the parties are heard. Order ipugned and recors of Court below peruse. Learned counsel f the etitioner vehemntly argued that in absence of any evidence of lawful marriage etween petitioner an respondent No. 1, respondent No. ,1 is not entitled for any maintenance from the petitioner. In case of claim of maintenance in terms of Section 125 of the Code strict prove of marriage is not required but claimant wife is required to prove the marriage or adduced the evidence which may give rise presumption of lawful marriage. Respondent No.1 has failed to adduced any evidence in support of any lawful marriage between her and petitioner, per contra petitioner has adduced the evidence to show that respondent No. 1 is not his Wife and Shukhmati is lawful married Ms a d m d d or p e b d Wife of the petitioner but court below has not considered the most important question. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent N0. 1 has opposed the petition and submits that evidence adduced on behalf of the husband is sufflcient for drawing the presumption 0f lawful marriage. Court below has rightly awarded the maintenance to respondent No. 1 who is legally wedded wife of the petitioner. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code the scope of interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not unlimited and it should be used sparingly in exceptional circumstances. In order to attract the provisions of Section 482 of the Code, I have examined the material adduced on behalf of the parties. In the present case both the parties are member of Schedule Tribe and resident of remote village where customary marriage is prevalent and factum of pomp and show are generally not found. AWI Parobai respondent No. 1 has deposed that she had legally wedded with the petitioner in accordance with her custom by performing Haldi, Tel, Bhoj, Bhat at Sirisguda. AW2 Munaram has also corroborated the marriage and custom observed in marriage namely Haldi, Tel, Bhoj, Bhat. AW3, Puran Singh and AW4 Mahesh Kumar Singh have also supported the factum of customary marriage between the petitioner and respondent. . Petitioner Kashiram has specifically deposed that he had married with Shukhmati, he is residing with Shukhmati. He has denied the suggestion that he has married with respondent No. 1. NAW Shukhmati alleged wife of the petitioner is also corroborated the statement of petitioner. NAW3 Samluram has also corroborated the statement of petitioner. Petitioner and their witnesses have specifically denied the suggestion that respondent No. 1 was even residing with petitioner in his house. Petitioner petitioner Wtnesses Shukhmati, itness , i w etr d Samluram are resident of Sirisguda. Present pitione has suggeste the spondent No. 1 in her cross examination that respondent No. 1 was residing in the house of pettioner a whe petitior refused to marr with her then she annoye and destroyed 5 plaint of Imli an told that if she ill not live in tt house then Wh she will eav hese plants. etitioner has also suggested that respondent has solen 12-13 hs n one female ig with 6 kis and Rs. 3,000/— from the house of the petitioner and when petitioner went to Polic Station for lodgng he report then police as refused to lodge the report on the gr that this is a dispute betwee usbd and ife. He has also suggested the respondent No. that respondent No. 1 has tried to create the pressure even by using fily language and quarreled. He ha also uggested tt on time petitionr had tried to commit suicide on account o the respondent No. 1, she ened al aforesaid suggestions. The suggestion given by the petitioner are as un :- "a€WW@#W¢‘W Wain wwwwemwWw/agw W3$W#W##W$WV@ 253W$WWW€WW$WWWWW WW/ WafWWWWW W¢WW§%#W$W#12—13WW Wwww/wWWmeWtw e/ WgmWWaafwwWWWWva %WW§%W$Weaa/-a a Wvg/GWWWWWWwwe WWWWW# W/WWWW%W%WW/agw WW§%#WWW$WWef?F/w WWWW—Wwww/w WW g$WW§W§WWWWW g7 [ii @ re i nd n ne y d 2 s d w ha y le t P t en ad p d e i t h ound n han w 1 th s s ha e e f di l der W§W m WW# § Ww W3o w wWWf WW¢W @ The aforesaid all suggestion are suggestive of the fact that respondent Was residing in the house of the petitioner. She has destroyed the 25 plaints of Imli on the ground that when she will not live in the house of the petitioner then why the plaint will live and she has taken hens, pig, 11. currency notes prior to filing application for maintenance. Report of ner was not: recorded by the police on the ground that this is a dispute between husband and wife but petitioner and. their witnesses has specifically denied that respondent was ever resided with the petitio petitioner. . These facts and evidence of petitioner are self contradictory and sufficientvto prove the fact that respondent No. l was residing with the petitioner for long time but finally on some reasons either she had left the house of the petitioner or she was ousted by the petitioner.'The respondent No. 1 was originally resident of Village Belar and not the residence of village Sirisguda, where petitioner is residing. The factum of lawful marriage of petitioner with respondent No. l has fully supported and corroborated by the suggestion given by the petitioner which is sufficient for drawing the inference of lawful marriage between petitioner and respondent No.1. Court below has rightly arrived at a finding that petitioner and respondent No 1 are married husband and Petitioner is able bodied man, the amount of maintenance awarded wife. is only Rs. 700/-. Considering the present cost of living the maintenance awarded is neither excessive nor unjust, warranting any interference. Consequently, this petition is without substance and is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismisse. d