Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State Of Gujarat & Ors, AIR 2005 SC 1809

INTRODUCTION:

In our developed society, for a person only first marriage is respected. If anyone marries man/women with their living partner by following customs of their caste, it is not considered as legally wedded marriage. An illicit relationship in our society is avoided and their child ae treated as illegitimate. By this kind of name, they are not entitled to get their rights in our developed and developing legal system.

Case Name	SAVITABEN SOMABHAI BHATIYA VS STATE OF GUJARAT &ORS
Citation	AIR 2005 SC 1809
Date of Judgement	10-03-2005
Jurisdiction	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Case No	CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION
Case Type	CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION 399 of 2005
Petitioner	INDRA SAWHNEY
Respondent	STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS
Bench	MR.JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT, MR.JUSTICE S.H KAPADIA.
Acts and section involved	THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Section 125 INDIAN CONSTITION, 1949 Article 39 Article 15(3)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In this case, The Appellant married to Respondent No 2 in 1994 by customary rites and rituals in their caste. At initial satge respondent No 2 is affectionate but, later he ill treated, gave physical and mental torture to her. The reason behind the change is he developed illicit relationship with lady name, veenaben. As appellant stayed with him got pregnant and had child of him. The respondent No 2 neglected both appellant and child.

The appellant filed application under section 125 of code of criminal procedure for claiming maintenance in Judicial Magistrate First class, Himmatnagar. The respondent filed reply by written statement that appellant was not his legally wedded wife and child (respondent No 3) wasn’t his child. He held that veenaben, legally wedded wife to him, as we are married more than 22 years and had 2 children with her. They elder son Hament, died due to road accident in July,1990 and mentioned veenaben as legal heirs and in voter list, ration card, provident Fund record shown her as wife of respondent no 2.

On 23rd June 1998, Judicial Magistrate First class granted maintenance for both appellant and child. But, respondent filed Criminal revision before Additional Session Judge Sabaakatha, District Himmatnagar and have opportunity to respondent to cross examine and awarded maintenance to both mother and child on 31st July 1999. Again criminal Revision application No 65/95 filed by respondent No 2, but it is dismissed.

By special criminal Application; Respondent No 2 filed in Gujarat High court by producing documents that he was already married to veenaben, Appellant not legally married wife of him. The High court of Gujarat held that the maintenance are granted to child only and enhanced to Rs 500 from Rs 350 and gave direction to pay enhanced amount from the date of order of Judicial Magistrate First class. By the decision of High court, case appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Whether second wife have maintenance from her husband under section 125 of code of Criminal procedure, 1973

Whether the amount of maintenance of child can be increased?

Whether section 125 of code of Criminal procedure and Article 15(3) of Indian constitution are valid?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

The appellant held that High Court taken too technical view in this matter and pleaded to restore the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First class

She stated that the documents produced by Respondent No 2 earlier marriage which was not awared by her and held respondent No 2 guilty of fraud and misrepresentation.

She argued that produced documents didn’t show any void for second marriage.

The appellant pleaed that the amount of maintenance for child must be fixed by taking living cost into consideration, as there is no limit in fixing amount in amendment of code of Criminal Procedure, 2001.

Appellant held that law acting against the woman who entered into relationship with married man without knowing and section 125 of CrPC doesn’t giving any protection to such kind of woman, it shows inadequacy and only legislators can undo it.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

The Respondent No 2 held that law fairly gace definition for the term “wife”, as there is no scope to include a woman, who not married legally.

ORDER OF THE COURT:

The Supreme Court held the judgement of the case by,

By Nanak Chand v Chandra Kishore AIR 1970 SC 446, the Court held that Article 15(3) and 39 of Indian constitution, 1950 states every man duty and natural, fundamental right to maintain his wife, children and old age parents if they are not able to maintain themselves, irrespective of personal law, but personal law need to be consider for deciding validity of Marriage.

By Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs Anantrao Shivaram Adhav and Anr, court held that there is no inconsistency in section 125 of code of Criminal procedure and Hindu Adoption and maintenance Act, 1956; both have seperate scope.

By Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs Bidyut Prava Dixit & Anr AIR 1999 SC 3348, Held that the validity of marriage is necessary for proceeding under section 125 of code of Criminal Procedure, which act as evidence.

By Smt Yamunabai case, Court held expression “wife” word in section 125 of code of Criminal Procedure interpreted it include only legally wedded wife and cover divorcee.

It held that the marriage with man having living spouse in the eye of law is null and void, but not voidable, she is not entitled to get benefits under section 125 of code of Criminal procedure and Hindu marriage act, 1955.

By Vimala(K) v Veeraswamy K 199(2) SCC 375, court held that the plea of subsisting marriage, respondent need to be prove that he was already married by the evidence on record; Court held  earlier marriage of respondent is true and dismissed application for claim of maintenance of wife.

The court made decision regarding the adequacy of the quantum of maintenance awarded to child; there is no limitation for fixing quantum under CrPC Amendment 2001 and section 127 of code of Criminal procedure permits increase in quantum.

By peculiar facts of case, Amount of maintenance of child increased to Rupees 850. Respondent No 2 agreed to pay lump sum amount of 2 lakhs within 4 months to appellant as final settlement of claim of respondent No 3, which deposited as fixed deposit by name of child with Appellant as mother guardian. The amount keeps on increase with monthly interest payment till Respondent No 3 attains majority.

CONCLUSION:

By this judgment, 1st wife and legally wedded wife are entitled to get amount of maintainence under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In our upgrading lifestyles, our law need to be expanded in wide range for these cases and it is Irrespective of the fact and circumstances, the marriage need to be vaild in the eye of law.

REFERENCE:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1590152/

This article is written by Rubini B, at Satyabhama Institute of Science and Technology, an intern under Legal Vidhiya