Reeta Singh Maurya and others v. Tribhuwan Singh) whereby learned court below has awarded maintenance to the tune

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that respondent no. 2 Reeta Singh had filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and three minor daughters before the family court on 24.7.2017 wherein she has shown herself as the wife of revisionist; she has stated that her marriage with the revisionist was solemnized on 11.1.2012 at her parental place; she was blessed with three daughters out of her wedlock with the revisionist; she has also raised allegation of harassment and matrimonial cruelty against the revisionist; she has also stated therein that she was turned out from her matrimonial home by her husband alongwith her three minor daughters and she was turned out from her matrimonial place after the incident on 1.2.2017 at 7:00 pm wherein she was given beating by her husband. He next submitted that the revisionist had filed elaborate written statement on 31.8.2018 wherein he had denied all allegations made in the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. and raised specific plea therein that the applicant Reeta Singh is not his legally wedded wife. He also stated therein that three children for whom maintenance has also been claimed by the applicant from the revisionist, are not born out of his wedlock with the applicant Reeta Singh. He also stated in written statement that the applicant had also filed a false complaint before the court of ACJM, Sonbhadra wherein Smt. Girija Devi, mother of the original applicant had stated in her statement under section 202 Cr.P.C. recorded in support of the complaint that her daughter Reeta was married with Kanhaiya Lal son of Gulsan resident of Mathaniya, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan and from this version coming from the side of applicant in said complaint case, it got proved that the applicant was not married with the revisionist. He further submitted that the marriage of the revisionist with Nirmala Singh daughter of Shankar Singh resident of Semra Karha, P.S. Ahraura, Mirzapur was solemnized in the year 1990 and the revisionist is blessed with two sons and one daughter from the said marriage; the respondents had filed an application for maintenance only to blackmail the revisionist to extort money from him. He lastly submitted that the court below has not framed appropriate issue for determination in the impugned judgement as specific plea was made by the opposite party in said maintenance case that the original applicant Reeta is not his wife and her daughters had not born out of wedlock with the applicant; infact she was married with one Kanhaiya Lal and there is no proof of her divorce from her husband Kanhaila Lal. This Court has considered the plea of revisionist at the time of admission of case and stayed the maintenance awarded to the applicant no. 1 Smt. Reeta Singh and directed the payment of maintenance to the applicant no. 2 to 4, the minor children. The revisionist is paying maintenance awarded in the impugned order to the minor children of applicant no. 1; the impugned order is vitiated by illegality, as maintenance has been awarded to the applicant without deciding the plea raised on behalf of the revisionist that the marriage between the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party had never taken place and the revisionist is not father of three daughters of applicant no. 1; the court below has wrongly placed reliance on some photographs filed alongwith the application for maintenance. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that no documentary proof has been given by the respondent no. 2 before the court below in support of her pleadings that the revisionist is owner of agricultural land or he operates government fair price shop; the revision is mainly based on legal plea as contended above. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the court below has framed issue on the basis of pleadings of the parties under section 16 of Family Court Act i.e whether the petitioner is entitled to seek maintenance from the opposite party and while deciding said point of determination learned court below has gone through the pleadings of the revisionist and opposite party and after considering the evidence on record has given a categorical finding that on the basis of material available on record, marriage of the applicant and opposite party is true, therefore, the point of determination no. 1 is decided against the opposite party. He next submitted that the revisionist is an influential person, he earns around Rs. 1,50,000/- per month from agriculture activities and government fair price shop as well as sale and purchase of food grains; the amount awarded in the impugned order itself is meagre amount; the revision is devoid of force; the statement of mother of applicant no. 1 Reeta Singh in complaint case filed by the applicant against the opposite party wherein she has stated that her daughter was married with Kanhaiya Lal earlier who is resident of State of Rajasthan is an outcome of undue compulsion and pressure exerted on her from the side of opposite party and only on the basis of lone statement of the mother of the original applicant no. 1 it cannot be held that the applicant was earlier married with some other person and she never married the revisionist. Learned court below has not framed a specific issue/ point of determination on the basis of pleadings of the revisionist who is opposite party before the court below as to whether applicant no. 1 is legally wedded wife of opposite party Tribhuvan Singh instead of fact that he has denied the factum of marriage with applicant no. 1 in written statement filed before the court below and also denied parentage of three daughters of applicant no. 1 namely Janavi, Ayushi, Ruhi whom she has stated to be born out of her wedlock with opposite party Tribhuvan Singh in her application under section 125 Cr.P.C. Learned court below has given a finding in issue no. 1 itself on the basis of evidence of both parties appearing on record that the factum of marriage between both parties is proved and opposite party has failed to prove his allegation made in written submission. The burden of proof of second marriage of the applicant was on opposite party as he has asserted this fact but he could not prove; the opposite party failed to cross examine PW- 2 and for that reason, opportunity of cross examine to PW-2 was closed. PW-2 is sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the applicant and she has supported the version of the applicant in sworn testimony of the court; she stated in her evidence before the court that three daughters were born out of wedlock of Reeta and her husband Tribhuvan; it is also stated in her evidence that Tribhuvan was residing alongwith applicant in a rented house at Rabartsganj from where he dislodged Reeta by giving her beating on 1.2.2017 on account of non giving birth to a male child. Although it was desirable on the part of learned court below to frame specific issue regarding matrimonial relationship of the parties on account of pleadings of the opposite party/ revisionist in present revision yet the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. are on summary nature and as the learned court below has dealt with the issue that whether the applicant is married with opposite party and three children were born out of their wedlock, who were applicant nos. 2 to 4 before the court below. Learned court below has given positive finding on this question and on that basis quantified the amount of maintenance which comes out Rs. 5,000/- per month payable to the applicants. Learned court below has also given finding that applicant no. 1 is not possessed of any source of income; she is not skilled to earn something to maintain herself and her minor children. The opposite party has placed reliance on the statement of CW-1 mother of applicant Reeta wherein she has stated that prior to marriage of her daughter Reeta with Tribhuvan on 11.1.2012 she was married to Kanhaiya Lal son of Gulshan; the revisionist has tried to absolve from responsibility of the applicants on the basis of singular statement from the side of the applicant; Apart from this statement, there is nothing on record to support the version of revisionist that respondent no. 2 was earlier married with some other person prior to her marriage with the revisionist. This is settled law that maintenance proceedings are summary in nature and strict proof of valid marriage between the parties is not required in every case and presumption of marital relationship may be raised on the basis of long cohabitation between person as husband and wife. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, learned court below has awarded very small sum of money towards maintenance of the applicant which is Rs. 2,000/- to the applicant no. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- each to her minor daughters, thus, total Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded to the applicants from the date of judgement instead of making it enforceable from the date of application as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. The respondent no. 2 has also filed some photographs in support of her claim that Tribhuvan runs a fair price shop in Nadihar, Block- Rajgarh, district Mirzapur; she has also filed her photograph alongwith revisionist taken in front of some temple in support of her claim being wife of revisionist in supplementary affidavit dated 21.1.2025. Consequently, I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed. However, it is open to the applicant to file an application under section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of amount of maintenance before the court below. In case such application is filed, learned court below shall decide the same in accordance with law keeping in view the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha wherein it is directed that the maintenance shall be awarded from the date of filing of application instead of from the date of order. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Dhirendra/ DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that respondent no. 2 Reeta Singh had filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and three minor daughters before the family court on 24.7.2017 wherein she has shown herself as the wife of revisionist; she has stated that her marriage with the revisionist was solemnized on 11.1.2012 at her parental place; she was blessed with three daughters out of her wedlock with the revisionist; she has also raised allegation of harassment and matrimonial cruelty against the revisionist; she has also stated therein that she was turned out from her matrimonial home by her husband alongwith her three minor daughters and she was turned out from her matrimonial place after the incident on 1.2.2017 at 7:00 pm wherein she was given beating by her husband. He next submitted that the revisionist had filed elaborate written statement on 31.8.2018 wherein he had denied all allegations made in the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. and raised specific plea therein that the applicant Reeta Singh is not his legally wedded wife. He also stated therein that three children for whom maintenance has also been claimed by the applicant from the revisionist, are not born out of his wedlock with the applicant Reeta Singh. He also stated in written statement that the applicant had also filed a false complaint before the court of ACJM, Sonbhadra wherein Smt. Girija Devi, mother of the original applicant had stated in her statement under section 202 Cr.P.C. recorded in support of the complaint that her daughter Reeta was married with Kanhaiya Lal son of Gulsan resident of Mathaniya, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan and from this version coming from the side of applicant in said complaint case, it got proved that the applicant was not married with the revisionist. He further submitted that the marriage of the revisionist with Nirmala Singh daughter of Shankar Singh resident of Semra Karha, P.S. Ahraura, Mirzapur was solemnized in the year 1990 and the revisionist is blessed with two sons and one daughter from the said marriage; the respondents had filed an application for maintenance only to blackmail the revisionist to extort money from him. He lastly submitted that the court below has not framed appropriate issue for determination in the impugned judgement as specific plea was made by the opposite party in said maintenance case that the original applicant Reeta is not his wife and her daughters had not born out of wedlock with the applicant; infact she was married with one Kanhaiya Lal and there is no proof of her divorce from her husband Kanhaila Lal. This Court has considered the plea of revisionist at the time of admission of case and stayed the maintenance awarded to the applicant no. 1 Smt. Reeta Singh and directed the payment of maintenance to the applicant no. 2 to 4, the minor children. The revisionist is paying maintenance awarded in the impugned order to the minor children of applicant no. 1; the impugned order is vitiated by illegality, as maintenance has been awarded to the applicant without deciding the plea raised on behalf of the revisionist that the marriage between the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party had never taken place and the revisionist is not father of three daughters of applicant no. 1; the court below has wrongly placed reliance on some photographs filed alongwith the application for maintenance. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that no documentary proof has been given by the respondent no. 2 before the court below in support of her pleadings that the revisionist is owner of agricultural land or he operates government fair price shop; the revision is mainly based on legal plea as contended above. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the court below has framed issue on the basis of pleadings of the parties under section 16 of Family Court Act i.e whether the petitioner is entitled to seek maintenance from the opposite party and while deciding said point of determination learned court below has gone through the pleadings of the revisionist and opposite party and after considering the evidence on record has given a categorical finding that on the basis of material available on record, marriage of the applicant and opposite party is true, therefore, the point of determination no. 1 is decided against the opposite party. He next submitted that the revisionist is an influential person, he earns around Rs. 1,50,000/- per month from agriculture activities and government fair price shop as well as sale and purchase of food grains; the amount awarded in the impugned order itself is meagre amount; the revision is devoid of force; the statement of mother of applicant no. 1 Reeta Singh in complaint case filed by the applicant against the opposite party wherein she has stated that her daughter was married with Kanhaiya Lal earlier who is resident of State of Rajasthan is an outcome of undue compulsion and pressure exerted on her from the side of opposite party and only on the basis of lone statement of the mother of the original applicant no. 1 it cannot be held that the applicant was earlier married with some other person and she never married the revisionist. Learned court below has not framed a specific issue/ point of determination on the basis of pleadings of the revisionist who is opposite party before the court below as to whether applicant no. 1 is legally wedded wife of opposite party Tribhuvan Singh instead of fact that he has denied the factum of marriage with applicant no. 1 in written statement filed before the court below and also denied parentage of three daughters of applicant no. 1 namely Janavi, Ayushi, Ruhi whom she has stated to be born out of her wedlock with opposite party Tribhuvan Singh in her application under section 125 Cr.P.C. Learned court below has given a finding in issue no. 1 itself on the basis of evidence of both parties appearing on record that the factum of marriage between both parties is proved and opposite party has failed to prove his allegation made in written submission. The burden of proof of second marriage of the applicant was on opposite party as he has asserted this fact but he could not prove; the opposite party failed to cross examine PW- 2 and for that reason, opportunity of cross examine to PW-2 was closed. PW-2 is sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the applicant and she has supported the version of the applicant in sworn testimony of the court; she stated in her evidence before the court that three daughters were born out of wedlock of Reeta and her husband Tribhuvan; it is also stated in her evidence that Tribhuvan was residing alongwith applicant in a rented house at Rabartsganj from where he dislodged Reeta by giving her beating on 1.2.2017 on account of non giving birth to a male child. Although it was desirable on the part of learned court below to frame specific issue regarding matrimonial relationship of the parties on account of pleadings of the opposite party/ revisionist in present revision yet the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. are on summary nature and as the learned court below has dealt with the issue that whether the applicant is married with opposite party and three children were born out of their wedlock, who were applicant nos. 2 to 4 before the court below. Learned court below has given positive finding on this question and on that basis quantified the amount of maintenance which comes out Rs. 5,000/- per month payable to the applicants. Learned court below has also given finding that applicant no. 1 is not possessed of any source of income; she is not skilled to earn something to maintain herself and her minor children. The opposite party has placed reliance on the statement of CW-1 mother of applicant Reeta wherein she has stated that prior to marriage of her daughter Reeta with Tribhuvan on 11.1.2012 she was married to Kanhaiya Lal son of Gulshan; the revisionist has tried to absolve from responsibility of the applicants on the basis of singular statement from the side of the applicant; Apart from this statement, there is nothing on record to support the version of revisionist that respondent no. 2 was earlier married with some other person prior to her marriage with the revisionist. This is settled law that maintenance proceedings are summary in nature and strict proof of valid marriage between the parties is not required in every case and presumption of marital relationship may be raised on the basis of long cohabitation between person as husband and wife. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, learned court below has awarded very small sum of money towards maintenance of the applicant which is Rs. 2,000/- to the applicant no. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- each to her minor daughters, thus, total Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded to the applicants from the date of judgement instead of making it enforceable from the date of application as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. The respondent no. 2 has also filed some photographs in support of her claim that Tribhuvan runs a fair price shop in Nadihar, Block- Rajgarh, district Mirzapur; she has also filed her photograph alongwith revisionist taken in front of some temple in support of her claim being wife of revisionist in supplementary affidavit dated 21.1.2025. Consequently, I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed. However, it is open to the applicant to file an application under section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of amount of maintenance before the court below. In case such application is filed, learned court below shall decide the same in accordance with law keeping in view the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha wherein it is directed that the maintenance shall be awarded from the date of filing of application instead of from the date of order. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Dhirendra/ DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad