IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.901 OF 2006. Smt. Janabai Damu Sonawane. ..Petitioner. versus 1. Damu Ganpat Sonawane. 2. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Uday Warunjikar, for the Petitioner. Mr. Rahul S. Kate, for the Respondent No.1. Mr. J.P.Yagnik, APP, for the Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 12th September 2008. : 12th September 2008. : 12th September 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT : JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The prayer in the said application was for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month. The said application was filed in the year 2003. It was alleged in the said application that the first respondent-husband had agreed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- per month and an agreement to that effect was executed by the first respondent-husband on 3rd January 1991. : 2 : 2. The said application was contested by the first respondent by contending that the petitioner was never his wife and there is no marriage solemnised between the petitioner and himself. It is the case of the first respondent that when he was 20 years old, he married to one Gokulbai in accordance with the religious rites. It is the case of the first respondent that he has been employed at Walchandnagar Industries at Walchandnagar. It is his case that from his wed-lock with Gokulabai, there are three daughters and a son. He stated that the marriage between himself and the said Gokulabai has been performed as per the Buddhist religious rites and therefore, the story put forward by the petitioner that she married to the first respondent in accordance with the Hindu religious rites is false. The first respondent contended that he never knew the petitioner. He stated that on inquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner was doing labour work and was indulging in prostitution. He alleged that the petitioner is the wife of one Suresh Shinde and she has a daughter from said Suresh Shinde. 3. The parties adduced evidence by examining the : 3 : witnesses. The learned Magistrate by Judgment and order dated 9th August 2005 held that the petitioner has established that she is the legally wedded wife of the first respondent and that the first respondent has failed to establish that Gokulabai is his legally wedded wife. The learned Magistrate found that the petitioner has proved that she is unable to maintain herself and that the first respondent has refused and neglected to maintain her. By the said order, the learned Magistrate proceeded to grant maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from the date of filing of the application. In revision application filed by the first respondent, the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge has interfered by setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate. The learned Judge has held that the petitioner has failed to establish that she is the legally wedded wife of the first respondent. 4. On 22nd September 2006, this Court issued notice for final disposal at admission stage. On 17th August 2007, after hearing the Advocate for the petitioner and the Advocate for the first respondent, this Court called for record and proceedings of the Trial Court. : 4 : Thereafter, the petition was adjourned from time to time. On 25th July 2008, the petition was adjourned to 13th August 2008. The parties were directed to explore the possibility of settlement. On 22nd August 2008, 29th August 2008, the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard. At the outset, it must be stated here on 22nd August, 2008, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent raised a preliminary objection that a revision application under section 401 of the Code of 1973 is maintainable against the impugned order and therefore, the writ petition may not be entertained. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the said objection was never raised earlier though the petition was repeatedly adjourned, and therefore, the objection was not bonafide. He submitted that as in this case maintenance under section 125 of the said Code has been denied to the petitioner wife, this was a fit case for exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the first respondent thereafter fairly stated that this Court may decide the petition on merits. : 5 : 5. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has completely ignored the scope of adjudication on an application under section 125 of the Code of 1973. He submitted that the proceeding under section 125 of the Code of 1973 is of summary nature. He submitted that in such proceeding, it is not necessary for the wife to adduce strict proof of marriage and it is sufficient if she satisfies the Court that she alongwith the respondent lived together as wife and husband. He submitted that there was enough evidence on record to show that the petitioner and the first respondent lived as wife and husband. He submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the first respondent had married to one Gokulabai. He submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are perverse. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent pointed out that though the petitioner relied upon the alleged agreement dated 3rd January 1991 executed by the first respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- per month, but the so-called : 6 : attesting witness to the said document Shri Vishnu Maruti Jadhav in his deposition before the learned Magistrate did not even refer to the said document. He submitted that the said document on which reliance was placed in the application under section 125 of the said Code of 1973 was not proved by the petitioner. He submitted that there was more than prima-facie evidence on record to show that the first respondent had married to Gokulabai long back. He pointed out that the petitioner has not produced prima-facie evidence of her alleged marriage with the first respondent and in fact, the petitioner has come to the Court with a false case. He submitted that there is no scope to interfere with the findings recorded by the Sessions Court. 7. I have considered the submissions. Before dealing with the factual aspects of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to refer to law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v/s Bidyut Prava Dixit and another [AIR 1999 SC 3348]. What is held by the Apex Court can be summarised as under :- : 7 : (a) The validity of the marriage for the purposes of summary proceeding under section 125 of the Code of 1973 is to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties. (b) The standard of proof of marriage in such proceeding is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. (c) If the claimant in proceedings under section 125 of the Code of 1973 succeeds in showing that she and the respondent lived together as husband and wife, the Court can presume that they were legally wedded spouses. (d) In such a case, the party who denies the marital status has to rebut the presumption. (e) In proceedings under section 125 of the Code of 1973, from the evidence adduced, if the : 8 : learned Magistrate is prima-facie satisfied with regard to the performance of the marriage, strict proof of performance of essential religious rites is not required. 8. The order passed under section 125 of the Code of 1973 does not finally decide the status of the parties and notwithstanding the findings recorded in such proceedings, a civil suit can be filed by the parties for determination of the status. 9. The petitioner stepped into witness box and stated that she married to the first respondent 30 years back in the temple of Mahadeo. She stated that the priest was brought by the first respondent. She has described the religious ceremonies performed at the time of marriage. It is stated that after few years, the respondent started harassing her as no issue was born to her. She stated that thereafter the first respondent solemnised his marriage with Gokulabai. She referred to the alleged agreement dated 3rd January 1991 between herself and the first respondent in which the first respondent allegedly admitted his marriage with the : 9 : petitioner and the fact that he has subsequently married to Gokulabai. The said agreement records that the first respondent agreed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- per month to the petitioner. The petitioner proved the notice of demand dated 22nd April 2003 issued to the first respondent and stated that one copy of the notice was received by the first respondent and another was returned. She stated that the first respondent was employed in Walchandnagar Industries and was drawing salary of Rs.10,000/- per month and had retired prior to recording of deposition. She stated that she had taken medical treatment in the dispensary / hospital of Walchandnagar Industries and she produced documents in support of her said case. In the cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that the first respondent was a Buddhist and her parents are Hindus. She denied that she had married to one Suresh Shinde. She denied various suggestions given to her in the cross-examination. 10. The second witness examined by the petitioner Vishnu Maruti Jadhav stated that the petitioner and the first respondent have been residing in his locality as : 10 : wife and husband from the year 1980. She stated that he was running milk business and he was supplying 1.5 litres milk everyday to the petitioner and the first respondent. In the cross-examination, the said witness denied that the petitioner was Hindu and contended that she was also a Buddhist. 11. The petitioner examined one Salilkumar Ashwinikumar Ghosh, Manager (Industries) of Walchandnagar Industries. He stated that the first respondent was an employee of the said Company from 17th January 1969 to 30th August 2003 and he was working as a fitter. He stated that at the time of the retirement, the first respondent was drawing salary of Rs.6,500/- per month and he received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the retiral benefits. He stated that the employees of the said Company were given facility of the medical treatment. He stated that employee’s children, wife, and mother are entitled to medical treatment at a concessional rate. He stated that the cost incurred on medical treatment is deducted from the salary of the employee. In the cross-examination, he stated that unless a person is related to an employee, medical : 11 : facilities are not extended. The petitioner also examined one Shri Vikas Krishnaji Nevase, Office Manager (Administration) of Walchandnagar Industries. He deposed that Walchandnagar Industries was making available medical treatment to its employees and all members of their family who were dependent upon the concerned employee. He stated that medical treatment is provided at a reasonable cost. He described the procedure followed in the dispensary of the Company. He stated that one Janabai Damu Sonawane (the petitioner) had taken medical treatment in the dispensary of the Company. He stated that in the record her name has been shown as the wife of Damu Sonawane, a fitter working in the Company. He stated that he had brought the original register containing the entries of the name of the petitioner. The Xerox copies of the relevant extracts of the register were taken on record. He stated that the said Janabai had taken treatment both as indoor and outdoor patient. He stated that the expenses incurred on the medical treatment were recovered from the salary payable to the first respondent. In the cross-examination, he stated that if a person goes to the dispensary claiming to be a wife of an employee, : 12 : necessary verification is made in the dispensary. He stated that he was unable to tell whether the petitioner is the wife of the first respondent. 12. The first respondent stepped into the witness box and he denied that the petitioner was his wife. He deposed that his marriage with Gokulabai was solemnised when he was 19 or 20 years old. He has deposed about the children born from his marriage with Gokulabai. He denied that any deduction was made from his salary on account of medical treatment given to the petitioner. He admitted that he had received a notice from Stree Adhar Kendra and Kranti Mahila Sanghatana on a complaint made by the petitioner. He stated that he visited the said Institution. He, however, denied that he had signed any document during his visit and that there was a settlement entered in a meeting held in the office premises of the said Institution. 13. The first respondent also examined the said Gokulabai who deposed about her marriage with the first respondent. Though the first respondent came out with the case that he married to the said Gokulabai at the : 13 : age of 19 or 20, in the cross-examination, the said Gokulabai stated that her husband i.e. the first respondent is elder to her by 12-15 years. She stated that her age at the time of marriage with the first respondent was 21 years. She denied that prior to her marriage with the first respondent, he had married to the petitioner. The first respondent examined one Bajirao Mohite, Gram Sevak of concerned Village Panchayat to prove the entries in the Birth Register showing the birth of the children born to the first respondent and Gokulabai. He examined one more witness Shivaji Ingle who stated that the petitioner had married to one Suresh Shinde and a daughter was born to her from the said marriage. The first respondent also examined one Chaya Ramesh as witness who stated that the petitioner was the wife of one Ramesh. 14. It must be stated here that the petitioner examined one Lilabai Sarjerao Pawar, a representative of Krantikari Mahila Sanghatana. She stated that the petitioner lodged a complaint against the first respondent with the said Institution. The said Institution issued notice to the first respondent. She : 14 : stated that the first respondent came to the Institution and there was a settlement between the petitioner and the first respondent. The first respondent accepted the petitioner as his wife and agreed to pay a lumpsum amount to the petitioner. She produced a writing maintained by the said Institution in which the said settlement has been recorded and stated that the same bears the signature of the first respondent and the thumb impression of the petitioner. 15. The evidence on record shows that the petitioner was treated in the dispensary of the employer of the first respondent. The record produced by the employer of the first respondent shows that the petitioner has been described as the wife of the first respondent. Shri Vikas Nevase, a Manager of the employer of the first respondent stated that the deductions were made from time to time from the salary payable to the first respondent towards the charges of the medical treatment given to the petitioner. In the record maintained by the dispensary of the employer, the petitioner has been described as the wife of the first respondent. Moreover, the representative of Krantikari Mahila : 15 : Sanghatana deposed that the first respondent appeared before the Institution and accepted that the petitioner was his wife. She produced in evidence a writing signed by the first respondent which shows that the first respondent accepted that the petitioner was his wife and had offered to pay a lumpsum maintenance of Rs.30,000/-. Apart from the representative of the employer, the witness Vishnu Maruti Jadhav deposed that the first respondent and the petitioner were residing as husband and wife. Even assuming that the agreement dated 3rd January 1991 was not proved by the petitioner, there is a prima-facie evidence on record to show that the petitioner was known as the wife of the first respondent. There is a prima-facie evidence in the form of Registers / documents produced by the employer of the first respondent with whom the first respondent was employed from 1969 to 2003. As against this, the first respondent deposed that his marriage with Gokulabai was solemnised when his age was 19 or 20 years. The said Gokulabai stepped into witness box and stated that her husband is elder to her by 12-15 years. However, she stated that her age at the time of the marriage was 21 years. There is a prima-facie evidence to show that the : 16 : petitioner and the first respondent were residing as wife and husband and the petitioner was known as the wife of the first respondent. On the other hand, there is a serious doubt about the genuiness of the case of the first respondent as regards his marriage with Gokulabai. According to the first respondent and Gokulabai, their respective ages at the time of their marriage were 19 years and 21 years, but the said Gokulabai stated that the first respondent was elder to her by 12-15 years at the time of the marriage. Therefore, it is very difficult to accept that the first respondent had married to the said Gokulabai prior to his marriage with the petitioner. 16. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have applied the test of the strict proof of the marriage. The learned Sessions Judge has completely ignored the law laid down by the Apex Court in that behalf. Therefore, there was no reason to disturb the finding of the learned Magistrate that the marriage between the first respondent and the petitioner was proved and that the first respondent had neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner. In a limited revisional : 17 : jurisdiction under section 397 of the Code of 1973, the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not have interfered by reappreciating the evidence on record. 17. The finding in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of 1973 as regards the status of the parties is never conclusive and notwithstanding the said finding, the parties can always file declaratory suit in the Civil Court claiming declaration regarding the status. After obtaining declaration from the competent Civil Court, the parties can apply under section 127(2) of the said Code of 1973. 18. The maintenance amount fixed by the learned Magistrate is only Rs. 500/- per month. The first respondent was drawing a salary of more than Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence, the petition must succeed and by setting aside the impugned order of the Sessions Court, the order of the learned Magistrate will have to be restored. 19. Hence, I pass the following order :- : 18 : (1) The petition is allowed. (2) The impugned Judgment and Order passed by the first Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, is set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate is restored. [ A.S.OKA, J.]