DNYANBA Vs. INDRAYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these criminal applications will stand disposed of by the present common judgment. These criminal applications arise out of one and the same proceedings viz. Misc. Cr. Case No. 47 (86) on the file of J. M. F. C. , Washim and decided on 21-2-87. That was application under section 125 Cr. P. C. made by Indrayani wife of Dnyanba and Bhagirathi as their minor daughter. Maintenance was claimed by Indrayani as the wife and Bhagirathi as the minor daughter. This application was partly allowed by the learned Magistrate. He held that the marriage between the present applicant Dnyanba and Indrayani was not strictly proved in accordance with law and also strictly valid in law as such. He did held that some form of marriage had been gone through; that Dnyanba and Indrayani had lived as man and wife and it was by reason of this living together, as man and wife that the said Bhagirathi had been born to them. The learned Magistrate, therefore, held that though Indrayani could not be said to have been proved as legally wedded wife of Dnyanba, Bhagirathi was all the same proved to be the child, may be illegitimate born to Dnyanba and Indrayani. Therefore, the learned Magistrate found the minor daughter Bhagirathi entitled to maintenance allowance and granted Rs. 50/- per month to her as maintenance. The application, so far as Indrayani as the wife was concerned, the same was dismissed.

(2.) DNYANBA, therefore, filed criminal revision application No. 11/89, challenging the order of the learned Magistrate granting maintenance allowance in favour of Bhagirathi, the contention being that he had absolutely no concern whatsoever with Indrayani. That Bhagirathi was not, even an illegitimate child of his, for whose maintenance, he was responsible. Therefore, that order deserved, according to him, to be quashed. Indrayani filed Cr. Revision Application No. 12/89 contending that the finding of the learned Magistrate that she was not the legally wedded wife of Dnyanba and hence not entitled to claim maintenance allowance from him was squarely wrong. Both these criminal revisions were, therefore, heard together. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Washim by his order dated 23-11-89 held that the challenge to the order passed in favour of minor Bhagirathi must fail. Criminal Revision No. 11/89 was, therefore, dismissed. In regard to Cr. Revision No. 12/89 preferred by Indrayani, he held that Indrayani was entitled to be held as the legally wedded wife of Dnyanba and, therefore, on satisfying the requirements of section 125 Cr. P. C. she also was entitled to claim a monthly maintenance allowance from him. Dnyanba has, therefore, come up in revision once again before this Court, resorting to section 482 Cr. P. C. , invoking inherent powers of this court and contending that reconsideration of the claim of both Indrayani and Bhagirathi is in the interest of Justice absolutely essential that the ends of justice could not be otherwise secured.

(3.) AT the hearing of this application, the two opponents Indrayani in Cr. Application No. 196/90 and Bhagirathi in Cr. Application No. 197/90 both remained absent though duly served. I have heard counsel Shri Kankale and Shri Patil on behalf of the applicant. The main question and the main thread of arguments as advanced by the learned counsel remained confined to one single and very material fact and that fact is whether on the date of the marriage between the applicant and Indrayani, in whatever or such form in which it had been gone through admittedly, was a valid marriage in view of his submission that at the date of such marriage between the applicant-Dnyanba and Indrayani the earlier marriage between Dnyanba and Laxmi a girl from village Chiwara was subsisting. The entire compass of the contention is, therefore, confined to this one and single material fact. There can be no question that if it is once found and required to be held as proved that having married Laxmi in the year 1977, Dnyanba had during the subsistence of such marriage with Laxmi had also taken Indrayani as his second wife in the year 1981, then this marriage with Indrayani is not valid, in that case Indrayani would not be called a legally wedded wife. She would not be entitled to claim maintenance allowance under section 125 Cr. P. C. Even if she were to satisfy the other requirements of section 125 Cr. P. C. So far as the claim made by Bhagirathi as the minor daughter is concerned, the learned counsel Shri Patil fairly submits that in the present circumstance and having regard to the fact that the evidence on record does establish beyond reasonable doubt that Bhagirathi was born to Dnyanba and Indrayani, whatever the nature of their relationship, that she was therefore, the offspring of Dnyanba, who was liable to provide maintenance to her. The order accordingly made in her favour is not intended to be challenged now, This submission came to be only impliedly in dictated after Shri Patil had made his submission even in regard to the absence of any liability incurred by Dnyanba in respect of this minor child also. However, a perusal of the judgment of the learned Magistrate as the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the criminal revision application amply justifying that the findings about Bhagirathi being at any rate an illegitimate child born to Dnyanba is entirely irreversible. It is, therefore, that an observation has to be made that the Cr. Application No. 197/90 against Bhagirathi did not appear to have been that bitterly canvassed.