- (1.) V. D. Chaturvedi, J. This Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21-4-2005 whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad allowed the petition No. 7 of 2004 (under Section 125 Cr. P. C.) directing the revisionist to pay the maintenance allowance @: Rs. 300/- per month to respondent No. 2 Smt. Neeru and the, maintenance @ Rs. 2500/- per month to each of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
(2.) THE relevant facts are briefly that the respondent No. 2 Smt. Neeru alongwith her daughters Km. Mili and Km. Pragya filed a petition under Section 125 Cr. P. C. against the revisionist stating therein to the effect that her marriage with Shiv Kumar Singh (revisionist) was held on 19-7-1999 in accordance with the Hindu rites and rituals; that during the said wedlock she gave birth to two daughters Km. Mili and Km. Pragya; that on 19-5-2003 Shiv Kumar Singh has beaten her and her daughters and turned them out of his house. That later he had beaten her even at her paternal house; that after her said marriage with Shiv Kumar she came to know that he was already married with another lady; that Smt. Neeru (respondent No. 2) was unemployed and was unable to maintain herself and her children; that Shiv Kumar had 150 Bighas of land, a Metha Dlant and a house at Rampur and thus was capable of maintaining her and her children. The revisionist Shiv Kumar filed his reply stating that Smt. Neeru was not a legally wedded wife of the revisionist; that his legally wedded, wife was Raj Kumar that Smt. Neeru was a graduate and was a teacher in a school and thus was capable to maintain herself; that the revisionist Shiv Kumar Singh and Smt. Neeru both were teachers in a school where they came into contact with each other; that out of sentiments and emotions the physical relationship developed between them; that due to these physical relations Smt. Neeru gave birth to two daughters; that the revisionist had no regular source of income nor had any property. After receiving the evidence of both the parties, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Moradabad found the revisionist liable to pay maintenance allowance to respondent No. 2 (Smt. Neeru) respondent No. 3 (Km. Mill)and respondent No. 4 (Km. Pragya) and ordered as above hence this revision. I have heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A. for the respondent No. 1 5. None appeared for the respondent No. 2 to 4. 6. The learned Counsel for the revisionist argued that the marriage of Smt. Neeru, if any, held with Shiv Kumar Singh (revisionist) during the life time of the revisionist's first wife, was no marriage in the eye of law hence the maintenance awarded in favour of respondent No. 2 was illegal; that Smt. Neeru was an educated lady and earlier was a teacher hence she was not unable to maintain herself; that the maintenance awarded to respondent No. 3 and 4 was excessive; that the Judge of the Family Court erred in awarding the maintenance from the date of petition instead of awarding the same from the date of order. 7. In our country the majority of the women are wholly dependent upon their husbands. If and when any of such women is deserted by her husband she runs into rough weather. She hardly has any means to survive hence a problem of survival comes before her. In order to meet such situation the Legislature has enacted the provisions of Section 125 Cr. P. C. to give immediate relief to the said unfortunate ladies. The pious purpose of Section 125 Cr. P. C. may not be defeated hence in cases where the plea of second marriage is taken by the husband it is incumbent upon him to prove by strict evidence (i) that his first marriage with another lady was held in accordance with the religious rites and rituals; (ii) that the first wife was alive at the time of O. P's marriage with the petitioner and (iii) that the factum of first marriage was brought to the notice of the petitioner before her marriage with the opposite party. If any of these 3 conditions is not strictly proved the plea of second marriage with the petitioner would fail. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (Vimla (K) v. Veera Swami (K) reported in (1991) 2 S. C. C. 375, observed that. "section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to deserted wife. When art attempt is made by the husband to negative the claim of the neglected wife depicting her as a kept mistress on the specious plea that he was already married the Court would insist on strict proof of the earlier marriage. The term 'wife' in Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure includes a woman who has been divorced by a husband or who has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. The woman not having the legal status of a wife is thus brought within the inclusive definition of the term 'wife' consistent with the objective. However, under the law a second wife whose marriage is void on account of the survival of the first marriage is not a legally wedded wife and is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance under this provisions. Therefore the law which disentitles the second wife from receiving maintenance from her husband under Section 125 Cr. P. C. for the sole reason that the marriage ceremony though performed in the customary forms lacks legal sanctity can be applied only when the husband satisfactorily proves the subsistence of a legal and valid marriage particularly when the provision in the code is a measure of social justice intended to protect women and children. We are unable to find that the respondent herein has discharged the heavy burden by tendering strict proof of the fact in issue. The High Court failed to consider the standard of proof required and has proceeded on no, evidence whatsoever in determining the question against the appellant. We are, therefore, unable to agree that the appellant is not entitled to maintenance. " 9. In the case in hand the revisionist has not discharged this heavy burden. He did not produce any eye- witness of his so called first marriage. The statement of the respondent Smt. Neeru that she, after her marriage with Shiv Kumar Singh, came to know that the revisionist was already married, does not absolve the revisionist of his responsibility to prove that his first marriage with Raj Kumar was a legal marriage nor it absolves him of his responsibility to prove that; his first wife was alive et the time of the revisionist's marriage with Smt. Neeru. The revisionist led no evidence at all that his marriage with Raj Kumari was held strictly in accordance with Saptpadi or in accordance with the traditions of his community or that Raj Kumari was alive at the time of the revisionist's marriage with Smt. Neeru. Thus the first and the second conditions mentioned above are not fulfilled at all. Smt. Neeru's statement that she after her marriage came to know that the revisionist was already married to another woman shows that the fact of revisionist's first marriage with Raj Kumari was never brought to the notice of Smt. Neetu, before her marriage. Thus the third condition is also not fulfilled. The revisionist, therefore, cannot take the advantage of his aforesaid plea of void marriage. 10. I, therefore, hold that the maintenance to Smt. Neeru (respondent No. 2) cannot be refused on the ground that the revisionist's marriage with respondent No. 2 was not a legal marriage or was a void marriage. For the purpose of maintenance allowance she was the wife of the revisionist within the meaning of Section 125 Cr. P. C. 11. The another question involved in this revision is whether a woman who was earlier in service or who is an educated one is entitled or not to get the maintenance allowance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. For the purpose of maintenance allowance under Section 125 Cr. P. C the potential earning capacity of a wife is not to be taken into account. The only thing which has to be considered is whether she is earning or not to maintain herself. If she is not earning adequate amount to maintain herself she is entitled to get maintenance allowance. An educated woman does not mean that she would necessarily get job, hence she cannot be deprived of her right to get maintenance unless it is proved that she was actually earning her livelihood. In the like manner a woman who was earlier in service but presently is not in any employment, is also entitled to get maintenance allowance. She would continue to get such maintenance allowance until she again gets enabling her to earn her livelihood. 12. In the case in hand there Is no allegations that Smt. Neeru service at the time of filing of the petitions (under Section 125 Cr. P. C.) hence she cannot be deprived of her right to get maintenance, education, if any, would not adversely affect her right to get maintenance. 13. The argument of the learned Counsel for the revisionist that Smt. Neeru is capable of maintaining herself is, therefore, rejected. 14. The next argument of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that the maintenance allowance to children at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month is excessive. The Judge of the Family Court found that the income of the revisionist was Rs. 1 lakh per annum. The revisionist has, the other responsibilities also. On the other hand, the need of the children to get education, nourishment, healthy atmosphere of living medical assistance and the money for their marriage cannot be ignored The quantum of maintenance to children may vary according to their needs and the standard of living of their family. 15. Considering all these aspects I am of the view that the maintenance allowance @ of Rs. 2000/- per month to each of the children would be an adequate amount of maintenance. 16. The learned Counsel for the revisionist also argued that the trial Court erred in awarding the maintenance allowance from the date of the petition instead of awarding the same from the date of order. The. petitioner becomes entitled to get maintenance from the date of filing of the petition. If in any case the interim maintenance allowance was awarded, in that situation the trial Court may order the maintenance from the date of the order. In the case in hand there is nothing before me to show that any interim maintenance allowance was ordered paid to respondents during the pendency of the petition. see no illegality in the impugned order whereby the maintenance allowance was ordered from the date of the petition. 17. It is also argued that examination in chief of Smt. Neeru was not recorded at all and that she was permitted to file her affidavit whereupon she was cross-examined by the revisionist. The proceedings under Section 125 -. P. C. are meant to provide the speedy remedy to the aggrieved party. The wife and children need immediate relief regarding the maintenance. Inviting of the affidavits of the witnesses helps the destitutes in providing speedy remedy and speedy justice. The revisionist was permitted to cross-examine Smt. Neeru hence no grievance was caused to the revisionist. The learned Judge Family Court committed no illegality in taking into consideration the affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 and thereafter giving opportunity to the revisionist to cross-examine Smt. Neeru respondent No. 2. The argument of the revisionist's Counsel on this score has no force hence rejected. 18. The maintenance awarded to Smt. Neeru is insufficient. But since she filed no revision against the impugned order hence no interference is being made regarding The Joint Registrar (Listing) such maintenance. 19. On the basis of what has been discussed above I partly allow this revision reducing the maintenance allowance awarded to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Each of the respondent No. 3 and 4 would get the maintenance allowance @ Rs. 2000/- per month instead of Rs. 2500/-per month. No interference is warranted regarding the maintenance allowance to Smt. Neeru. The maintenance allowance shall be payable from the date as ordered by the trial Judge. 20. Certify this judgment to the Court below. Revision partly allowed. .;