@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
S.N. Satyanarayana, J.@mdashThe petitioner in Crl.Misc. No. 202/2011 on the file of Family Court, Dharwad, has come up in this revision petition impugning the order dated 4.5.2013 in dismissing her application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month. In this proceeding the petitioner and respondent are respectively widow and widower before the marriage is said to have taken place between them in the year 1995. It is the case of the petitioner herein that she was earlier married to one Ramesh Athawadkar. In the said wedlock she had two daughters prior to 1995. It is stated that after the death of Ramesh, she met respondent Ashok Hanchinamani a widower having a daughter aged about 6 years living with him. According to her, both the petitioner and respondent got married and their marriage was performed in Ganesh Temple at Belgaum and thereafter they started living together as husband and wife in the quarters which is provided to the respondent by P & T Department.
2. Admittedly the respondent herein is an employee of Post and Telegraph Department and in the year 1995 he was working at Belgaum. It is stated that the petitioner and respondent lived together as husband and wife happily for some time and thereafter differences arose between them due to respondent addicting to vices, which resulted in the respondent treating the petitioner with cruelty. It is stated that in the meanwhile the respondent was transferred to Kudachi and he was drawing a salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month. During the time when the petitioner and respondent were residing at Kudachi, she was thrown out of the matrimonial house. Hence she filed a petition in Crl.Misc. No. 202/2011 on the file of Family Court, Dharwad, seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month.
3. In the said proceeding the respondent denied the relationship of husband and wife between them. He contended that he was married to one Rajeshwari of Bagalkot in the year 1997 and in the wedlock he has a daughter and during delivery of the said child his wife died and thereafter to look after the minor child he had taken the services of petitioner as maid servant in his house and according to him he lived in the house for about 7-8 months, during which period there was no relationship of husband and wife between them. Subsequently at the advise of persons who are not in good terms with the respondent, the present petition is filed. With aforesaid pleadings the proceedings went up for recording evidence. In the said proceeding the petitioner got herself examined as P.W.1 and also her sister as P.W.2 and in support of her case she produced and got marked in all 13 documents as Ex. P.1 to P.13(a).
4. Out of that one of the document is the order in Crl.Misc. No. 239/2010 filed by her under section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance on the file of Family Court, Belgaum, which was dismissed on the ground that the said Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same and directing the petitioner herein to initiate proceedings before the Court of JMFC at Dharwad and along with that the school leaving certificates of her daughters Sujata and Sangeeta showing the name of respondent as their father and LIC policy status report of the policy standing in the name of the petitioner wherein the nominee is respondent and the relationship between the nominee and the policy holder is husband and wife and photographs along with negatives showing the petitioner and respondent standing next to each other like married couple and other photographs which are taken at the time when the respondent''s daughter attained puberty during which time the petitioner and respondent are standing next to the girl as parents and sitting next to each other in the midst of relatives indicating that the said function is conducted by them as parents of the girl who is biological daughter of respondent. According to the petitioner she is step mother of the said child whom she has looked after as her own child.
5. Per contra, the respondent adduced evidence as RW.1 and produced and got marked two documents, wherein at the time of admitting the children to the school they were registered as the children of Ramesh Athawadkar and also the registered sale deed dated 12.10.2004 wherein the name of the petitioner was shown as wife of Ramesh Athawadkar. With this he tried to substantiate that even as on 2004 the petitioner herein continued as the wife of Ramesh and that there is no relationship of husband and wife between them. The Court below on verification of these documents has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to establish the marriage between herself and respondent and further observing that in the light of relationship of husband and wife not being established, the petitioner is not entitled to seek maintenance from the respondent and accordingly dismissed the Crl.Misc. No. 202/2011 by order dated 4.5.2013, which is under challenge in this revision petition.
6. In this proceeding the order impugned was challenged on the ground that the Court below is misled by Exs. R.1 and R.2 which are the certificates issued by the very same school which has issued Exs. P.3 and P.4 and also the sale deed which is Ex. R.3 and has come to the conclusion in the absence of any certificate to demonstrate the marriage and also considering the fact that the petitioner was earlier married to Ramesh and she being the widow of Ramesh, respondent has married to one Rajeshwari as his first wife, presumed that there was no marriage between the petitioner and respondent and accordingly held that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent is not proved.
7. In this proceeding it is contended that the Court below while appreciating the evidence available on record has not looked into the other documents which would disclose the relationship of the petitioner and respondent and it is further contended that the Court below misinterpreting the evidence of sister of petitioner which has resulted in dismissal of the petition.
8. Heard Smt. Prafulla Naik, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S.R. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the order impugned and the grounds urged and also the pleadings in the lower Court record. When all the pleadings are re-appreciated, it is seen that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent could not have been arranged marriage in as much as on the alleged date of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, the petitioner was a widow with two children and respondent was widower with one daughter and it is also seen that there is no possibility of marriage being arranged or finalised by the elders of their respective families for the reason that they belong to different communities. As could be seen from the record, the petitioner wife was a Maratha and respondent is a person belonging to Madar community, which is scheduled caste. Therefore obviously there could not have been arranged marriage between the parties. If at all there is a marriage, it is only a marriage of convenience, or a marriage arranged by and between the parties for their own benefit and for the sake of themselves and their children.
9. In this background if the material available on record is analyzed and the conduct of the parties is looked into, it is clearly seen that the series of documents which are produced and marked, the positive and negative photographs would indicate that the petitioner and respondent have projected themselves as husband and wife to the society in as much as they jointly performing the ritual which would be normally conducted at the time of minor girl attaining puberty. In the instant case the girl who attained puberty is none other than the respondent''s daughter from his earlier marriage. When a function was organized in that behalf, in the midst of the relatives, in the performance of religious function, petitioner and respondent have projected themselves as parents of the girl as could be seen from the photographs. The negatives and positive prints which are produced in the Court below would indicate that they are the parents of the minor girl who had attained puberty and it is also seen that there are series of photographs wherein they are standing next to each other as husband and wife and as discussed above, since their marriage was said to have taken place in Ganapati Temple, expecting any document to be in existence in that behalf in the form of marriage certificate or other document is ruled out.
10. In the circumstances what has to be looked into is the document which supports the contention of the petitioner as wife of Ashok, the respondent herein. In that behalf if it is seen that there are insurance policies which are taken in the name of petitioner wherein the nominee is none other than the respondent and the relationship between policy holder and nominee is shown as husband and wife. Similarly in the school leaving certificate the name of children are shown with the name of respondent as father. No doubt the said document to that effect namely Exs. P.3 and P.4 are contrary to Exs. R.1 and R.2 which are issued by the same school.
11. At this juncture if the said documents are analyzed, the circumstance as to how the said documents issued from the said institution in different form is properly explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of admitting the children to school, they were daughters of petitioner as widow of Ramesh and at that time she had not entered into wedlock with the respondent. Therefore the name of the children were shown as children of deceased Ramesh and it is further stated that subsequent to the marriage of petitioner with Ashok, an application was given and the name of the respondent was entered as father of the children, since he was taking care of their welfare, education and all other aspect which cannot be disbelieved. With the photographs and the school certificates available on record are disclosing the relationship between the petitioner as husband and wife.
12. On going through the records it is seen that the reason for the Court below to disbelieve the relationship of the petitioner and respondent as husband and wife appears to be the only document i.e., the sale deed which is registered in the name of the petitioner in the year 2004 wherein she is referred to as wife of Ramesh. For that, the explanation on behalf of the petitioner is that the said property was acquired out of the proceeds of sale of property belonging to Ramesh and in the process of acquiring the said property the respondent assisted her in getting the said document registered in her name. Therefore it was under his advise since there was reinvestment of the proceeds of the property of Ramesh, the name of the petitioner is shown as his wife of Ramesh Athawadkar. This Court is unable to disbelieve that line of argument also.
13. At this juncture learned counsel for the petitioner tried to produce the documents namely the xerox copy of the Election Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India and the xerox copy of the ration card showing the name of petitioner and respondent as husband and wife. Since they were xerox copies, this Court was not willing to accept the same and this Court requested Sri Ravi Hosamani, learned Government Advocate to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the said document from the Food and Civil Supplies Department. A copy of the said document was also handed over to him by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
14. The learned Addl. Government Advocate this day produced along with a memo produced the screen shot print of the ration card to show the present status of the ration card bearing No. RAY60297374 issued by the Food and Civil Supplies Department of the Government of Karnataka. Since the petitioner was not able to secure the original of the Election Identity Card, this Court instructed the Court Officer to search in the website of Election Commission of India to verify whether the Election Commission has registered in its record the petitioner as voter of Kudachi Assembly Constituency of Raibag taluk of Belagavi district in Karnataka under No. IELO 156133 as seen in the Xerox copy produced by her. The Court Officer by logging on to the website of Election Commission ascertained the petitioner being registered as voter under the aforesaid number and she being described as wife of Ashok Hanchinamani and the address is that of Kudachi where he was working at the relevant time as an employee of Post and Telegraph Department.
15. With all this it is clearly seen that there did exist relationship of husband and wife between the petitioner and respondent at the relevant point of time and earlier to that. It is also seen that the Family Court having been too technical in ascertaining the same has proceeded to believe that there was no relationship of husband and wife between the petitioner and respondent and proceeded to believe Exs. R.1 to R.3 in denying the relationship of husband and wife between them. It is further seen that the evidence of P.W.2 also to a certain extent has misled the Court below. As discussed supra, the petitioner and respondent belong to different community. In that view of the matter the petitioner''s sister who belong to Maratha community, who think herself as belonging to forward community definitely would not have visited the house of her sister the petitioner and the respondent who is said to be a person belonging to lower community, for more than 20 years as stated in her evidence. The Court below is misinterpreting the evidence of P.W.2 has come to the conclusion that there was no marriage.
16. With the aforesaid discussion it is clearly seen that there is more than sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner and respondent did enter into wedlock by marriage which is performed before the deity in Ganesh Temple and thereafter lived as husband and wife. The same is supported by several of the documents, viz., the extract of ration card, election identity card, print out of which is taken in the Court and included in the record this day and other documents.
17. It is also necessary to place on record at this juncture that the manner in which the ration card which was issued in the joint name of the petitioner and respondent as could be seen from the xerox copy and which is confirmed by the computer printout of Food and Civil Supplies Department would clearly indicate that the cancellation of ration card is done by the person in whose name it was issued that is subsequently cancelled in the year 2013 that is subsequent to Crl.Misc. No. 202/2011 is dismissed and at that time when the revision petition is filed in this Court in the year 2013. The timing of cancellation of ration card at the insistence of respondent appear to support the judgment which is rendered by the Family Court in disbelieving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. The intention of the respondent herein in cancelling the said ration card is only to erase the evidence of marriage between the petitioner and himself, which was recorded in the ration card issued by the Food and Civil Supplies Department bearing No. RAY60297374 of 2006. The document which was in existence from 2006 to 2013 is said to be cancelled only with an intention to see that the evidence of petitioner and respondent being husband and wife is cleared.
18. With the aforesaid discussion this Court feel that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent is proved beyond all reasonable doubt and that the manner in which the entire proceeding has gone also indicate that the respondent not only neglected the petitioner but has deliberately refused to maintain her thereby committing an offence as contemplated under Section 125(1)(a) of Cr.P.C.
19. In the instant case the material available on record would indicate that the petitioner being a widow from her 1st marriage and deserted wife from 2nd marriage having no source of income having two minor children to be educated is not in a position to maintain herself. So far as the maintenance of the children is concerned, this Court would fairly concede that it is not the responsibility of the respondent to maintain the said children. He is responsible to maintain the petitioner alone.
20. In that view of the matter, considering the fact that the respondent is a Government employee working in Post and Telegraph Department drawing a salary of more than Rs. 30,000/- shall pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the petitioner for her maintenance alone. With the aforesaid observation this revision petition is allowed.
21. The judgment passed in Crl.Misc. No. 202/2011, on the file of Family Court, Dharwad, in rejecting her application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is hereby set aside. Consequently the said petition is allowed directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- and in addition to that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses to cover the litigation expenses in the Court below and as well as this Court.
