Sudheer v. Haleema Beevi

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2020-02-10
Court Decision / Holding: RPFC No. 489 of 2014 dismissed; the Family Court’s maintenance order directing Rs. 5,000 per month from 01-02-2012 stands.
Final Disposition: RPFC No. 489 of 2014 dismissed; maintenance order upheld.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SUDHEER AGED 32 YEARS S/O.NIZARUDEEN

Respondents

HALEEMA BEEVI

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Smt. Dhanalakshmi

Case Synopsis & Summary

This revision petition (RPFC No. 489 of 2014) questions the Family Court, Nedumangad’s order in MC 68/2012 requiring a maintenance payment to Haleema Beevi, the respondent-wife. Haleema filed the maintenance petition alleging she is the legally wedded wife of Sudheer (the revision petitioner) and that he has neglected her, with alleged income around Rs. 25,000 per month. The Family Court partly allowed the MC, directing Sudheer to pay Rs. 5,000 per month from 1 February 2012. Sudheer contends there was no valid marriage; he argues that Ext. P1 (sale deed) and Ext. P2 (marriage agreement) were misinterpreted and that his income is not as alleged; he urges dismissal of the MC. The respondent’s evidence includes PW1–PW3 and Exts. P1–P3, including testimony supporting a marriage ceremony. The High Court, accepting the trial court’s assessment, notes that in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C, strict proof of marriage is not mandatory and there is a presumption in favour of marriage when cohabitation is continuous, citing Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar. The court holds that the marriage is proved by the Exts and witnesses, and confirms the maintenance order as not unreasonable. The RPFC is dismissed in its entirety, leaving the Family Court’s maintenance order intact.”

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 125 Cr.P.C.Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of marriage under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act; presumption against concubinage in long cohabitation

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner submits there is no valid marriage between the parties; the Family Court erred in finding otherwise and misconstrued Ext. P1 (sale deed) and Ext. P2 (marriage agreement). He asserts there is no sure income and requests dismissal of the MC on grounds that the evidence does not establish a marriage beyond reasonable doubt in a civil sense; the matter requires reversal of the Family Court’s order.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends that there is a valid marriage supported by Exts. P1–P3 and the testimony of PW1–PW3, which establishes the ceremony and cohabitation; the presumption of marriage applies and the maintenance award is justified given the respondent’s lack of independent income or means.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kamala and others v. M.R. Mohan Kumar	2018 (4) KLT 864	Positive	Cited to support that strict proof of marriage is not required in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C; such proceedings are summary and rely on presumptions of marriage in the context of long cohabitation.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**RPFC.No.489 OF 2014** **1** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 21ST MAGHA, 1941** **RPFC.No.489 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 68/2012 DATED 01-09-2014 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:** **SUDHEER AGED 32 YEARS S/O.NIZARUDEEN,EDACHIRA ROADARIKATHU VEEDU,PUTHUKULANGARA MURI,UZHAMALAKKAL VILLAGE** **BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI** **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** **HALEEMA BEEVI AGED 38 YEARS D/O.FATHIMA BEEVI,HALEEMA MANZIL,MANCHAMOOLA,PUTHUKULANGARA MURI,UZHAMALAKKAL VILLAGE,NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 541** **THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-02-2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **RPFC.No.489 OF 2014** **2** ## **ORDER** The respondent in M.C No.68/2012 is the revision petitioner in this revision petition [in short R.P(FC)]. The petitioner in the M.C is the respondent in this RP(FC)· 2. The respondent had filed the maintenance case (in short MC) seeking an order of maintenance against the revision petitioner. She filed the MC, inter alia, pleading as follows: She is the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner. Their marriage was solemnised on 14.4.2005. She and the revision petitioner lived together as husband and wife. The revision petitioner willfully neglected to maintain her. She does not have any job or income. The revision petitioner is a contractor by profession and he is also doing real estate business. **RPFC.No.489 OF 2014** **3** He on an average gets a monthly income of Rs.25,000/-. Hence the respondent is entitled for monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.7000/-. 3. The revision petitioner resisted the M.C. He filed a written objection, inter alia, contending as follows: The respondent is not his wife. The allegation that the marriage was conducted on 14.4.2005 is false and unfounded. The respondent had agreed to give her daughter in marriage to the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner's name was falsely written on Ext.A1 document. The revision petitioner has no income as alleged. The respondent is a tailor by profession, and that she has sufficient means to maintain herself. Hence, the MC be dismissed. 4. The respondent and two other witnesses **RPFC.No.489 OF 2014** **4** were examined as PW1 to PW3. Exts.P1 to P3 were marked on their side. The revision petitioner was examined as CPW1. 5. The Family Court after considering the pleadings and evidence on record allowed the MC in part, by directing the revision petitioner to pay the respondent maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month from the date of petition i.e. from 1.2.2012. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned order this RP(FC) is filed. 7. Heard Smt.Dhanalakshmi, the learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that, the Family Court has in that the gone wrong holding **RPFC.No.489 OF 2014** **5** respondent is the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner. There is no marriage between the parties and hence the revision petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as maintenance to the respondent. The Family Court has not considered the evidence in its proper perspective. The Family Court has also misconstrued the recitals in Ext.P1 sale deed and the Ext.P2 marriage agreement. Hence the MC may be dismissed. 9. It is settled law in a plethora of decisions that, in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the marriage between the parties need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt as that is in a civil proceeding. The petitioner in the MC is only to prima facie prove that the respondent is the husband of the claimant. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamala and others v. M.R.Mohan Kumar [2018 (4) KLT **RPFC.No.489 OF 2014** **6** 864], has held that unlike in matrimonial proceedings, in a proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C strict proof of marriage is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy. Law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years. 11. It is on record that as per Ext.P2, a marriage agreement was executed between the revision petitioner and the respondent. It is also proved that Ext.P1 sale deed was executed by the respondent in favour of the revision petitioner. Ext.P3 photograph also shows that there was a ceremony conducted involving revision petitioner and the respondent. In addition to the oral testimony of the respondent, who was examined as PW1, the respondent also examined PW2 and PW3, who categorically deposed that they witnessed the **RPFC.No.489 OF 2014** **7** marriage ceremony that was solemnised between the revision petitioner and the respondent. All the above circumstances clinch the factum of marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent; which is more than sufficient for a summary proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 12. The Family Court after considering the pleadings and evidence on record rightly came to the conclusion that there is a marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent. I am in complete agreement with the finding of the Family Court. There is no necessity to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the essential ceremonies of marriage was solemnised. The presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act gets attracted, and the onus of proof is on the revision petitioner to prove that there was no marriage. Hence I hold that the respondent has proved the marriage with **RPFC.No.489 OF 2014** **8** the revision petitioner. 13. Coming to the question of quantum of maintenance that was awarded by the Family Court, the only contention that was taken by the revision petitioner was that he is a coolie by profession, and that the respondent is a tailor, who has means to sustain herself. 14. Taking into consideration the fact that the revision petitioner has not produced any document or cogent evidence to substantiate that the respondent is a tailor by profession having her own means to sustain herself, I do not find that the amount that has been ordered by the Family Court at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month is unreasonable or excessive. 15 In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find no **RPFC.No.489 OF 2014** **9** illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the Family Court in directing the revision petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/per month as maintenance to the respondent. There is no merit in this RP(FC) and the same is hence dismissed. ma/11/02/2020 Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** ## **/True copy/** P.S to Judge