IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP(Family Court) No. 40 of 2008()
1. JOHN JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SHINY MATHEW,
... Respondent
2. ANIRACHEL JOHN (MINOR),
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :13/02/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
R.P.F.(C).No.40 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008
ORDER
This revision petition is directed against an order passed
under Section 125 Cr.P.C under which the petitioner has been
directed to pay maintenance to the claimants, allegedly his wife
and admittedly his son.
2. Co-habitation as husband and wife is admitted. That a
child was born in such relationship is also admitted. The
petitioner offered to maintain the 1st claimant on condition that
she resumes co-habitation with him. Of course, simultaneously
and parallely he raised a contention that the woman was
unchaste. She relied on Exhibit-A1 marriage certificate issued by
the Church authorities to prove that a valid marriage had taken
place. According to the petitioner though they were living as
husband and wife and a child was born in the relationship and
though he had offered to maintain her on condition that she lives
with him as a wife, he is not liable to pay maintenance for the
reason that no valid marriage is there.
3. The 1st claimant wife examined herself as PW1. She
proved Exts.A1 to A3. Exhibit-A1 as stated earlier is the marriage
certificate to prove that the marriage was solemnized between
R.P.F.(C).No.40 of 2008 2
the petitioner and the 1st claimant on 09.09.99. Exts.A2 and A3
are documents to show that the claimant/wife was afflicted with
tuberculosis.
4. The petitioner examined himself as CPW1. He
examined a non entity from the local church in an attempt to
prove Ext.X1. Exhibit-X1 is said to be a marriage register
maintained in the church. CPW2 was examined and Exhibit-X1
was produced in an attempt to show that Exhibit-A1 marriage is
not seen entered in the marriage register Exhibit-X1.
5. The learned Judge of the Family Court after considering
all the relevant inputs found it safe to accept and act upon the
oral evidence of PW1 about the existence of a valid marriage. Her
evidence read along with the stand taken by the petitioner as also
Exhibit-A1 led the learned Judge to come to a conclusion that
there is sufficient evidence to satisfy the court about marriage in
a proceedings under Section 125Cr.P.C.
6. Coming to the quantum of maintenance, the learned
Judge took the view that an amount of Rs.3,00/- per mensem to
the wife and child would be the sufficient amount. I shudder on
the reasonableness of the said direction. In any case it is not
necessary for me to go into that question in the revision petition.
R.P.F.(C).No.40 of 2008 3
If and when the claimant wife comes in a revision petition, that
question can be considered in that revision petition.
7. It is by now trite that in proceedings under Section 125
Cr.P.C, it is not necessary to prove marriage to the hilt as would
be necessary in a matrimonial proceedings or in criminal
proceedings for prosecution for the offence of bigamy. The
classic statement of the law that the evidence of persons who
have seen the spouses living together as husband and wife would
be sufficient evidence of marriage in a proceedings under Section
125 Cr.P.C must always be remembered.
8. We have the evidence of PW1 about the marriage
between her and CPW1. We have Exhibit-A1 marriage certificate
issued by the church proved of course only through PW1. CPW1
in evidence admitted that the said certificate is signed by a
superior church functionary who is related to him and who has no
motive or animus whatsoever against him. We do also have the
evidence of the petitioner as CPW1 that he is willing to maintain
the 1st claimant on condition that she resides with him. I am
satisfied that the materials presently available are eminently
sufficient to establish a marriage as required in a proceedings
under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
R.P.F.(C).No.40 of 2008 4
9. A contention is built on Exhibit-X1 and the oral
evidence of CPW2. The learned Judge of the Family Court dealt
with the question in detail. CPW2 was a non entity in the church
who had no authority to represent church and to tender evidence
on behalf of the church. The petitioner who has not chosen to
examine his relative who had admittedly signed Exhibit-A1 cannot
be permitted to create doubt or confusion in the mind of the court
with the help of evidence of CPW2 and Exhibit-X1. CPW2 even on
his own showing is only a peon in the church, who was not
authorized by anyone to represent the church to tender evidence
or to produce Exhibit-X1.
10. No other contentions are raised. I am satisfied that
this revision petition only deserves to be dismissed. I do the
same.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
