[ad_1]
Jharkhand High Court
Rekha Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 June, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:16076)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3257 of 2023
------
Rekha Kumari, aged about 28 years, wife of Kishore Kumar Mahato,
daughter of Ayodhya Mahato, resident of Barki Bowa, P.O. Bhuli,
P.S. Tetulmari, District- Dhanbad, Jhakhand.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Kishore Kumar Mahato, son of late Hublal Mahato, resident of
village – Kenduadih, P.S. Putki, District- Dhanbad
… Opposite Parties
——
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
with a prayer to quash the order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the learned Family
Court No.-II, Dhanbad in O.M. Case No.714 of 2022 whereby and where under
the ad interim maintenance petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected by
the court concerned.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner filed a petition under
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance which was registered as O.M. Case
No.714 of 2022. During the pendency of the said case, the petitioner again filed
a petition for ad interim maintenance dated 26.05.2023 contending therein that
she is the wife of the opposite party No.2 and though the opposite party No.2 is
1 Cr. M.P. No.3257 of 2023
(2025:JHHC:16076)
an employee of B.C.C.L. and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.50,000/-, the
opposite party No.2 did not pay any maintenance to her and the petitioner
prayed for ad interim maintenance for Rs.10,000/- per month. No objection was
filed by the opposite party No.2 before the Family Court, No.-II, Dhanbad in
respect of the said petition filed for ad interim maintenance filed under Section
125 of Cr.P.C. The undisputed fact remains that the opposite party No.2 put
vermillion in the head of the petitioner in a temple and photographs were taken
and marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 was
solemnized in a temple but the dispute is whether the said marriage which took
place in the temple between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 is in
adherence to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act or not.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner files the photocopy of the deposition
of the opposite party No.2, who as petitioner, has filed Case No.812 of 2022
which is pending before the court of Family Court No.-II, Dhanbad with a
prayer to declare his marriage with the petitioner herein as null and void;
which case is pending.
5. Learned Family Court, No.-II, Dhanbad, in respect of the application for
ad interim maintenance, considered that the parties admitted that the marriage
was solemnized between the parties in Shiv Mandir, Mahila Thana but
thereafter nothing has come in pleading of the petitioner that marriage has
taken place as per the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act and therefore, the
petitioner is not a legally married wife and rejected the petition for ad interim
maintenance and directed the case to be fixed on 15.09.2023 for evidence of the
petitioner and observed that the time petition will be considered only in
exceptional circumstances but it is admitted by both the learned counsel for the
2 Cr. M.P. No.3257 of 2023
(2025:JHHC:16076)
petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, that the said
O.M. Case No.714 of 2022 has not yet been disposed of and is still pending
before the court of Family Court No.-II, Dhanbad.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs.
Bidyut Prava Dixit & Another reported in (1999) 7 SCC 675 pararaph-9 of
which reads as under:-
“9. It is to be remembered that the order passed in an
application under Section 125 CrPC does not finally determine the
rights and obligations of the parties and the said section is enacted
with a view to provide a summary remedy for providing
maintenance to a wife, children and parents. For the purpose of
getting his rights determined, the appellant has also filed a civil
suit, which is pending before the trial court. In such a situation, this
Court in S. Sethurathinam Pillai v. Barbara [(1971) 3 SCC 923 :
1972 SCC (Cri) 171] observed that maintenance under Section 488
CrPC 1898 (similar to Section 125 CrPC) cannot be denied where
there was some evidence on which conclusion for grant of
maintenance could be reached. It was held that order passed under
Section 488 is a summary order which does not finally determine
the rights and obligations of the parties; the decision of the criminal
court that there was a valid marriage between the parties will not
operate as decisive in any civil proceeding between the parties.”
(Emphasis supplied)
and submits that the conduct of the Family Court No.-II, Dhanbad in
prejudging that there is no valid marriage as per the provisions of the Hindu
Marriage Act amounts to exceeding the jurisdiction vested upon it; so far as
deciding the petition for ad interim maintenance filed in a proceeding under
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., is concerned.
7. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant
Cr.M.P., be allowed.
8. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer made by
the petitioner in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that in the absence of any
3 Cr. M.P. No.3257 of 2023
(2025:JHHC:16076)
material to show that a valid marriage has been solemnized between the
petitioner and the opposite party No.2, the petitioner cannot be termed as ‘wife’
and in the absence of the petitioner being ‘wife’, a petition under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and as the said petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
is not maintainable, the interim maintenance petition filed in that proceeding is
also not maintainable. Hence, it is submitted that the learned Family Court No.-
II, Dhanbad has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order.
Therefore, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be
dismissed.
9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
here that it is a settled principle of law that the purpose of Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. In the case of Sunita Kachwaha
& Others vs. Anil Kachwaha reported in (2014) 16 SCC 715, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India observed that a proceeding under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. is summary in nature. The inherent and fundamental principle of
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well
as mental agony and acquiesce that a woman suffers, when she is compelled to
leave her matrimonial house. There has to be some acceptable arrangement so
that a woman can sustain herself.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kamala vs. M. R.
Mohan Kumar reported in AIR 2018 SC 5128 considered the question as to
whether strict standard of proof of marriage will be necessary where the wife
claims maintenance from the respondent alleging him to be her legally married
husband and the same was answered by holding that; unlike matrimonial
4 Cr. M.P. No.3257 of 2023
(2025:JHHC:16076)
proceedings, where strict proof of marriage is essential, in proceedings under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. such strict standard proof is not necessary; as it is
summary in nature and meant to prevent vagrancy.
11. In view of the settled principle of law as discussed above, this Court is of
the considered view that the facts of the case where the undisputed fact
remains that the marriage between the petitioner and opposite was No.2 was
solemnized in a temple and there is photographs of the respondent putting
vermillion on the head of the petitioner and the suit of the opposite party No.2
to declare the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 to
be null and void is still pending in the same court, the Family Court No.-II,
Dhanbad has committed a grave illegality by denying the ad interim
maintenance to the petitioner by rejecting the prayer for ad interim
maintenance; more so when no objection was filed by the opposite party No.2
to the petition dated 26.05.2023 filed by the petitioner for ad interim
maintenance.
12. Accordingly, the order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the learned Family
Court No.-II, Dhanbad in connection with O.M. Case No.714 of 2022, being not
sustainable in law, is quashed and set aside.
13. The learned Family Court No.-II, Dhanbad is directed to pass a fresh
order in the petition dated 26.05.2023 filed by the petitioner within thirty (30)
days from the receipt of copy of this order; after giving opportunity of being
heard to the parties afresh.
14. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 19th of June, 2025
AFR/ Animesh
5 Cr. M.P. No.3257 of 2023
[ad_2]
Source link