IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 RPFC.No. 207 of 2005() ---------------------- MC.511/2004 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MANJERI. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- ASHIQU K.V., S/O. IMBAYI K.V., KUNNATH VALAPPIL HOUSE, RAJINIMANGALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, PUDIYAKADAPRAM, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: --------------------------- 1. FATHIMA K., DAUGHTER OF ABDULKADER, POYYAMADATHIL HOUSE, PUTHIYAKADAPRAM P.O., REJINIMANGALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 2. ANSHAMOL K., DAUGHTER OF FATHIMA K. (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER FIRST RESPONDENT. ADV. SRI.PROMY KAPRAKKATT FOR R1 SRI.K.N.ABHILASH FOR R1 SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT FOR R1 SMT.P.K.BEENA FOR R1 SMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVI FOR R1 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC) No. 207 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008 ORDER In this RP(FC) the petitioner assails an order passed by the Family Court directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- and Rs.600/- per mensem to the claimants allegedly his wife and child. 2. Marriage and paternity are disputed. According to the petitioner, there has been no valid marriage between him and the 1st claimant. The 2nd claimant was not born in the relationship between him and the 1st claimant, it was contended. 3. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant/wife examined herself as P.W.1. She examined P.W.2 – a Khasi, who had performed the marriage between her and the petitioner herein. She relied on Exts.P1 to P3(a). Ext.P1 R.P.(FC) No. 207 of 2005 -: 2 :- is the marriage certificate issued by P.W.2 to confirm the marriage between the claimant/wife and the petitioner herein. Ext.P2 is the relevant page of the marriage register in which the claimant/wife and the petitioner herein have signed as spouses. ExtP3 is a photograph and Ext.P3(a) is a negative thereof. Ext.P3 shows that it is the photograph of the petitioner herein along with the claimant/wife. 4. On the side of the petitioner herein he examined himself as R.W.1. Exts.D1 to D2 series were marked. They only show that the petitioner had suffered some injuries on 7/12/03 and had undergone treatment at the hospital. The learned Judge of the Family Court took note of the oral evidence of P.W.1 which was eminently supported by Ext.P2 marriage register and Ext.P3 photograph. The learned Judge of the Family Court also took note of the oral evidence of P.W.2 and Ext.P1 marriage certificate issued by him. The learned Judge took note of the evasive answers given and the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the petitioner to explain Exts.P1 to P3 as also the oral evidence of P.W.2. In these circumstances, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. R.P.(FC) No. 207 of 2005 -: 3 :- 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on various grounds. First of all it is contended that the claimant/wife had contracted an earlier marriage and that there is no valid evidence to show that there was a divorce. The learned counsel contends that the age difference between the petitioner and the 1st claimant/wife is so prominent – the claimant/wife is elder by about 7 years and this also indicates that there was no probability of a valid marriage between P.W.1 and R.W.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relies on the defects in the petition to contend that even the period of joint residence of the spouses is not averred specifically in the petition filed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further attempts to pick holes in Ext.P2 marriage register in which some entries are not made and there is a crucial omission to describe the marital status of the 1st claimant/wife. The totality of these circumstances must have persuaded the court below to come to the conclusion that the burden on the claimant to prove the marriage in a proceeding under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. has not been discharged. It is hence prayed that the impugned order may be set aside. R.P.(FC) No. 207 of 2005 -: 4 :- 6. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. I must first of all remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of criminal courts in proceedings under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. to enter a finding regarding the disputed question of marriage. It is trite that a court considering the application under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. adopting the summary procedure is not to render final and authentic verdict on the disputed status of the parties. The primary thrust of the provisions of Sec.125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy. Incidental to its jurisdiction to prevent vagrancy courts under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. are at times called upon to adjudicate the disputes regarding status. The jurisdiction to finally resolve such controversy about status and to pronounce authentically on such disputed status rest only on civil courts following exhaustive and elaborate procedure. Even a finding regarding marital status under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. may at worst only cast a shadow on the status of the parties and it is for such parties to approach the civil court for appropriate declaratory reliefs about the disputed status. 7. I do take note of the oral evidence of P.W.1 which is R.P.(FC) No. 207 of 2005 -: 5 :- convincingly supported by not only the oral evidence of P.W.2 but also Exts.P1 to P3(a). Of course, the oral evidence of P.W.1 and Ext.P1 go together if one can be disbelieved the other can also be. But what appears to be crucial and vital is that there is no specific denial of the signature of the petitioner in Ext.P2 marriage register. A specific assertion that the signature appearing in Ext.P2 is not his has not been made by the petitioner when he was in the witness stand as R.W.1. On oath he has not denied that the signature in Ext.P2 is not his. In fact his vague and inconclusive explanation when he tendered evidence is only that he did not know how Ext.P2 came into existence. He does not say that the signature is not his. He does not assert that his signature had been obtained in Ext.P2 under duress or fraudulently. The entires in Ext.P2 notwithstanding the fact that it is deficient in some aspects do support the oral evidence of P.W.1 eminently. He does not explain Exts.P3 and P3(a) at all. He admits that the man in the photograph is he and the woman in the photograph is P.W.1. No better explanations are offered. 8. Adopting the yardstick of a prudent person which every R.P.(FC) No. 207 of 2005 -: 6 :- court is supposed to do under Sec.3 of the Evidence Act, the conclusion appears to me to be inescapable that sufficient evidence to discharge the burden on the petitioner under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. is there in this case to justify the conclusion of the court below about the marriage and paternity. The mere fact that the wife is considerably elder cannot by itself destroy the case of the claimant as even according to the claimant it was not an arranged first marriage of hers. That the divorcee had allegedly fallen in love with the young neighbour and had contracted the marriage, appears to be the definite case of the claimant also. 9. I must alertly take note of the nature, quality and contours of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. Unless findings of fact and discretions exercised by the subordinate courts are so grossly erroneous or perverse and such vice, in turn, leads to miscarriage or failure of justice, such revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction cannot and should not be lightly invoked. I need only mention that I find absolutely nothing vitiating the impugned order which can persuade or invoke the revisional jurisdiction. Once a marriage R.P.(FC) No. 207 of 2005 -: 7 :- between the contestants is satisfactorily established, the burden must rest heavily on the shoulders of each contestant to prove that the marriage is void for the reason that it was an impermissible bigamous marriage and an earlier marriage of one spouse remains undissolved. That burden, in the facts of this case, remains undischarged. 10. The quantum of maintenance awarded is found to be eminently fair, reasonable and just and the same does not also warrant any revisional interference. 11. This revision petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.P.(FC) No. 207 of 2005 -: 8 :-