w Arisine from district Bilaspur e IN THE mGH GOURT OF GHHATTISGARH v ATBILASPUR Cr. M. P.NO. s<^ / 2006 PETITIONER: Ram Singh Gond, aged 40 years, son of Shri Mang^l Singh, resident of village Madai, w . : _ . .. ..._.. • policfe- station Marwahi, district Bilaspur (C.G.) (non-applicant) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: ^ (1) Akanxa, aged 4 years, minor, through -natural guardian piother Krishna Bai, daughter ofBabu Lal, (2) Smt. Krishna Anno, aged 28 years, wife ofRam Singh Anrio, Both residents of village Jogidogri, police station, Gaiirela, distnct Bilaspur (C.G.) (Applicants) ^^ -^ .o'V(3) Sfate of Chhattisgarh through the District Magitrate, Bilaspur (C.G.) (statutory formalparty) APPLIGATION UNDER SECTION 4S2, OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDtJlBE. / /'*<' ^?^ 197J, FORESTVOKINGINHERENTPOWERS^ 8 .S- llt tt s^ ^^f^^w^^: SIffiBK^ s!B!!jli!'S?Ni;'l; 9EWBM HIGH<^OR^<>^«mHAT¥lSGARH:BIItftSP»R !ii!iJB'B!:si!iStB(i'!K>i:iuJ:!SS&'3:! l:BI!:l!'rlhi;ffi:!i61B8:SPS.®i''Y ?llSI ISMBiKI%®^ •:. ! ''•':' •••':: 1;;'::' : ' •' :." . .1: ::]flSBiB:®K$li?''%^^ ;';.;:; :;:1:'.'' .•'•;;'-''1::: • ' : • . • ||||J ||'|||g|S|ir©|E|BE CH•:.H^ PETmONER Gf.M.P. N6.98/2006 Ram Singh Gond, i'" BBI'S;: •'KS:!^ •;:;': IlJjl 111 i: is ,i^:<: :i:;!| MNl.i ^feN' :i ^)' :^ m Vesrsus M»PONDENTS :s .^ Akanxa an another (Apt>Ucation,underSeetIon482ofer.PC.I Appearance: ' ShnSpi^nathfVerma, cpunselfoi^the piet^^ % ';, ;^Shir^^i:tH^effi^|il|roast8^^ol^se^ ::(Pass|EiE^offi^:.tt2%Jl%..: - .' • •' :,: • ; ••;.. .,:: Y, : 1 •: 1. ThiS petition under SectioH 482 pfGr.P<e. is direcfed agam^ & dated .lla May/ 2006 passetf l3y Additional SeSsions Judge (CT Pendra-road in enminat Revision Nb.422/04 reversiag the order dated 14ffl Ju]y, 2004 passeil by theJu^ial Magistrate Fir^ CIass^^^^^P^ road in M.J.C. No.t65/02 tiy which the Magistrate has rejected the application forgrant ofinaintenanee ^d^ the^fe -re faerein, but awarded niaintenailce ®brespondentNp.l/niinor daughter. In revision, tlle| .order }of Magistrafe_ in so far as! it rejected the applifcatiQn of wife/respondent No.2, has beert r6verss& and the SSt^S sSfiyf^ "M gsBBIS!|i3||;^!^^.';; ,1|| <a KKM Ei^fe:il:s^! iNBffi '-2.- 1111 j||||j||^sa^atl:,:GoHrt.':awarded'^:niairrt 'to 'responderit ^N6.2-'wife,:: jagainst wfaich this petition has been filed. 'mwm iBlii'i: :^ •,^i.i liUB'i W BS;nill \,' ]®3.I?eamed counsel for the petitioner argued thaf fh.e leamed revisional eourt exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding inaintenance tb respondent No.2-wife, though;it is eleai^ proyed froni the evidence on recbrd that she is not the legally; weddsd wife of the petitioner. Learned counsel subrctHted that respondenf Np.^ adniitted in her deposition that befare marrying the petitioner, sMe was ^arried to one I^ alive and there is no evideaGe to prove tUat there; was valid .diyorce between resppndent No.2 i and Lakhan Sttlgh. It has^ alsa fceen submitted fhafc tKere is oYerwhelfning evidehce on record regarding admission on the part ofresppndent No2 that the petitioners first wife is Kunti Bai, who is stUl alive and there is no evidence ofvalid divprce between the petitioner ahd his firsf wife Kuriti. TherefQre, assiuaing that there was a niarriage betweeri the petrdoner and respondent No.2, it was void and therefere respondenf N6.1 is not entitled to award of fflamtemarice. It has alsQ teeen Subin^e^ tha^ the daughter of the petitioher as she was not born out of any relations and therefore, the Court below has wrongly awarded the maintenance fo girl Akansha. He submits thaf the orders of award of maintenanee are abuse ofthe process oflaw. 3. Leamed GOliitsel fbr the petitioner irelies upori thg deoisioir ofiSCTprfrai' . «*: • ..''.•:.' '::-;i.u-^"'^:;s;:l';;:"::;.:';-y^ Court in the cases ^of Yamuaaltai agitnantrao iAdUavs^Vs.S .Anaia.trao ShivramAdfaav andiaao1:faer1. ..IAIR 1988 SC 644 13BIB; ^^ ;fk i^^:.o;;j.!sfa.aaii -3- •^t" ^lli " ;-f :i i:!: |att.i;|£)n :the other liand, learned; counsel for respondehts Nb. I 85 2 has S'. supported tUe award of maintenance by arguing that in summary ..-J .. • .'..'.' • .; • •' ...' • . \. ... • .'/ . :.^ '..'. .-. ..'. ^' ••' ,•.'•• ' " '.'.'. .'• • ..': proceedings urider Sectiort 125 ofthe Cr.P.C., respondents led aniple evidence on record to prove inarriage between parties in accordance with the eustom prevaleat in Gond tribes. Learned counsel further argued fhat the eustonis of Gond tribes permit second marriage and that the Hindu Marriage Acg 1955 is not applicable to ta-ibes. He submits that as it is admitted position that tUp parties are Gond tribe, Hindu. Marriage A<^ is not appUcable and iri^ ^ of the evidence on recprd regardmg marriage by pouringturmeriG and water, respondents are.entifled to award of niairitenance. 5. Leamed counsel for the respondents placed reUance on thejudgments of High Court of Madbya Pradesh ;in fhg cases df Kumari Bal W/o Anand RainyVs. AnandramK^aiKiiEi;^a^r2 & Shakun Bai Wd/o :^:\iS6m.ni^&;I&islu^niljSndzOitfflers^.:^^^^ • '' : ' 6. 3 Mavelieard^IearneCsounselip perysedthe records. 7. Resppndents in their appliGation under Section 125 of Cr.P.C pleaded that the parties are Gorad tribe and as per the eustoms prevalent in Gond tribe, respondent - Smt. Krishna married Rariismgh in the nionth of October, 1998 and smee fhen, was Ihmlg wi& herein as his wife.It has also been pleaded that Akansha was bom out of the marital relations between pgrties. Smf. Krishna deposed that slle^was mamed m the year 1998 and Ram Singh is her 2 I99&(2yM.P.L.J,584 3.'t999 (2)M.P.L.J.307 (A.W.l)-has -4- ii|l|i|jsbaB®an3\Afcarish^^^ ^||®Bffl(l,^KamSingh started beating her and used to say thait he wiU bring li^aek liis first wife. Ih Uer 6ross-exaniination, she has maurtained her version Tegarding niarnage with the petitioner. Maksundan Singh(A.W.2) depQSed that Krishna Bai was married to .•^- • . '" '...'..'•••' ':.'; • ••••••.••• • • .. Ram Singh and he was present at the tiirie of marriage. He also \ - ' '• deposed that before marriage there was divorce between the petitioner and his flrstwife Kuntijn viyage'ff'anchayat, where he was present and thereafter, Ram Singh contacted the second marriage with Krishna Bai/respondent Na;2y He also deposed that as per the prevaient Gustoms, raarriage was ^erfornied/^ w^ turmeric water was showered. Patram Smgh (A.W.3) has a^ siipported the case of •'*.•'•. "..••':.:- ^"'•" \ .•'.'.•••..•-•'•'... • •'.' :':..•'•••".' Krishna and has deposed fliat he wa& invited at the tiffle of marria.ge and he was present i®%e^^^ r^ the petifioner and Krishana Devi., • ' ;.1.:'1..1:-,, . :::'':. , •' 8 . The petitiflner -te his^evi8en.^^as^^ Gangaram. as N.A.W^ have stafe^ fliat petitioner;-RaiHsir^^ to Kunti; 9. True it is that Krishna Devi (A.W. 1) has admitted m her testimony that before her marciage with petitioner, she was inarried to Lakhan and has also admitted that Lakhan Singh is alive and she has also stated that Kunti Bai is the first wife of petitioner and is alive but says fhat there was diyorce between the petitipner and Euriti. 1 ' . : : • ' ': ^ :'•.'••• . ' . ID, It is an admitted position 'between ^he parties that both belong to GoncZ tribe. That betng so,"tKe provjlsi^^^^ ,nor tMe petitioner is entitleid^ Gori^ fM Sll TE"'ii;-ir 'ifl;li!" ^ -5- ifiTst wife and in the absenCe of (liyorce und^ the^law, second marriage bef^en the petitioher and, Krishna Devi would be void and Krishna eannot l3e said t6 be legally wedided wife. Siiiular issue caine-up for consideratidn before the- Higti Court bf Madhya" Ri-adesh in fhe Gas&- of Ruman Bai (supra),-^yherem, it w^ held that provisions pf Hiadu Marriage Aet are not appUcable to abonguial tribe of Gortei, but th% are goverhed Tay local custoins with ;.s'.~: • '. -- .• : . . '• ' ' ' • ^^.:.''''.' .""'':•"° .1:- ••'••' ;.;.' • "•' :-:;- •'.. ••• '.'. '•;... regard t6 marriages. It Ii^{alsoj3®enheld^^^^& need npt be periorided as ioFmally^^ mamage is corirmon ainoiigst thetu ^d thi^;foUo^ of o^rmg Churito the bride ^ 6ridegrQoia._T^ leavingthe wife and'this-results in; diyprce wheii there is an expressed ^iggreement td divorce. DiwQrees are ratUer coininon and second iiiiain^e Qf the wife is one of tlie^i^ieators of end of niarriage with ••:ipreva;ei|^^a^iaand.:^^s^aIsQi^oniE^ :ni6re- than ::on.e;."w^i!§MlBgsj^tM|i^^i:^^g'I|i|asec life"tirne'of3|rSti^^':'' i ^n ease^also, 6n afbresald eonsideration, itwaslield that the wife was entitled to awa^ of maintenance even though she was the wife after the se^ marriage. . ., . ; In the case of SUakun Bai (supra), the Court dealt ^ ^with regard to applicability ofHindu Marriage Acf f&^^^^ j'beeii Iield fhat putting turmeric aad water 'by ane on anothers jl|ioi'ei:i§N^ft^^6sui5cientceremQi^df%a^ l l i.;j^ |fl|||J^!^ig|IjgEiffld;^itt:im^tlie; .iinpugrted.. order' is'.,that /the:' leamed'; :revisi£)Ha||j ||gj|I@^|^@|^||a^ -iii<iK<;oiisiiiera.ti£^ iBM5®:i5;KiBS%BS;^3 %i'?S®%'S'SS%^ •'''":."' ."'"^ •'• !;. '•~:'l^''ls:iSS'':I"aW ffi3i!Mffi;%*®BBSSSssSra'sl;"iN^-?''.?^^^^ ; • ; . '. ' • -; - -:":' . ••:S&%,:SS': »ES '.R w\ m ^i ^'^t~^v:'^-'^^-'^^^ 'iitSS ^MiiS'a; slSiBMi ^fflKBI" sa»is BSI @Sil BK'iJBKSI WS999 :/W yESXcWs&ssl ^S^iS^i^ .;)•%. f! :'">Af-" Praveeh li: .'.I •f -6- fo facturii of marn^e and exainined the factum and validit^ marriage in the light of the principles of law laid dowii by Madhya^ .\ - - ;.. . • : . .- _. .. •.:.'•• ;.:- Pradesh High Court in the aforesaid two decisioris. The reliance placed by the petitiorier ffl the casepfYaxnunabai (sirpra), isnot applicable^te the peculiar factsand eircunistaaces of the present ease, asitis acas& of Gond tribe and not a case where the prbvisioris 6f Hindu Marriage Act areapplfcable. ff ~:-:''' :^i'::;:^ -! •'• ^ .;:: • : ! ' 12; Against the order 6f Magistrate awarding maintenarice to minor girl Akansha, the petitioner herem. did not prefer any revision. Otherwise also, m. yiew ofthe findings recorded by this Court as abcive, as the GTder of award of m.aintenance to wife is being upheld by this Court, challenge to award ofTnaintenance to minor Akan.sha is^rejeeted. tl3. ^ln &e resuK^ (^ders'pas^d^l:^ Court beldw do not sufier ^froin;.an^^ilt&;gaEt^JQ<|^|E\|6rsiB^a|| iKca^^ ^1:-' •^a:wiz<i:lj< |j||iaiEB(^an©g|^ case'fbiK ui(:erfereneeujider8ecti6it482rof;er.P.C.ism i ^ 14, Petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge lt<^St^iiSSi^§2il