SAKINA ANJUM Vs. EHSAN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision is directed against the order dated 04.06.2015 passed in Maintenance Case no. 159 of 2010 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed holding that the factum of marriage was not established.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue regarding the factum of marriage was adjudicated as Issue no. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that while adjudicating the said issue, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, without calling for the documents or report from the Marriage Officer at Raghunathpur, Purulia has relied on the letter produced by the opposite party-husband alleged to be received from the Office of Registrar General of Marriage, West Bengal wherein it was informed that Mr. Sushil Kumar Dutta, who had issued the marriage certificate, had retired in January, 2006. That on the said basis, the court below had held that since Marriage Officer had retired on 27.01.2006, hence the question of solemnization of marriage of the petitioner with opposite party on 08.06.2010, is not acceptable. Learned counsel has submitted that the court below erred in holding that since Purulia is at a distance of 125 Kilometers, it is not possible that marriage could have been solemnized on the same date i.e. on 08.06.2010 before the Marriage Officer, Purulia, West Bengal and the Kazi at Ranchi. It is submitted that the finding of the court that since both the petitioner and opposite party were below the marriageable age, hence, there was no valid marriage is not correct as in the case of Md. Idris Vs. State of Bihar, 1980 CrLJ 764, the Division Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court has held that the girl who has attained the age of puberty (15 years) can marry without the consent of the parents meaning thereby that under the Mohomedan Law the girl attains the age of majority at the age of puberty accordingly the marriage is permissible. It is urged that the Court below has failed to appreciate the Nikahnama (marriage certificate) adduced by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel on behalf of opposite party has countered and submitted that the documents of the parties was considered by the Court below and on appreciation of the school certificates, the court below has found that the opposite party was below 21 years at the time of marriage. It is submitted that even under the Indian Marriage Registration Act, marriage can be solemnized when the girl and boy have attained the age of majority. That the advocate of opposite party had obtained the report from the Office of Registrar General of Marriage, West Bengal, i.e. Exhibit-B, wherein it has been mentioned that Mr. Sushil Kumar Dutta, the Marriage Officer, had retired on 27.01.2006. The said report was filed by the advocate for the opposite party and since it is a public document, the court has rightly relied upon it. It is submitted that it would be evident from the order sheet dated 19.11.2014 that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. along with certain documents but did not press the application due to which the documents were not marked as Exhibits. It is argued that the finding of the learned trial court that there was no valid marriage between the parties is in conformity with law and it does not require any interference by this Court.