Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Dowlat Ram Vyas vs Smt. Sugunamani Vyas And Anr. on 5 March, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(1)ALD(CRI)588, 2001(1)ALT(CRI)315, 2001CRILJ2265, II(2001)DMC424
ORDER R. Ramanujam, J.
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in M.C. No. 22 of 2000 on the file of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry.
2. The petitioner herein is the husband and the 1st respondent herein is the wife. They are hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner" and "the respondent" as they are arrayed in the said Maintenance Case.
3. The petitioner filed the said M.C. against the respondent alleging that she is his legally wedded wife, their marriage was solemnized on 9-2-1953 as per the Hindu rites and caste customs, both of them were living happily after the marriage and she gave birth to a male child on 22-11-1955, some time thereafter the respondent developed illicit intimacy with one Mangamma Tiwari and started to neglect her and her son, in spite of her repeated requests the respondent did not respond favourably, she has no means to live on her own, the respondent is a very rich man and, therefore, she is entitled to get maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month from the respondent.
4. Mr. Narasimhacharya, learned counsel for the respondent (petitioner herein) strenuously contended that the petitioner (1st respondent herein) is not the legally wedded wife of the respondent and this fact was borne out by the suit - O.S. No. 32 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry - filed by her son against the respondent and others claiming partition of the suit scheduled properties, wherein he specifically admitted that his mother came to know that by the time of her marriage the respondent was already married to the 2nd defendant in the said suit (Saraswati Bai), she herself mentioned about the said suit in the said M.C. filed by her, hence, it should be inferred that she herself is aware of the fact that she is not the legally wedded wife of the respondent, but filed the said M.C. only to harass the respondent, who is more than 80 years old, which is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and, therefore, it is liable to be quashed at the threshold.
5. Having given my anxious consideration to the aforesaid submissions, I find it difficult to accept the same.
6. The well recognized test that is to be applied in a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, like the present one, is: examining the petition or the complaint, as a whole, without going into the merits of the allegations made therein, to find out whether it discloses a prima facie case or not. If the result is positive, i.e. if it discloses a prima facie case or the ingredients of the alleged offence, the proceedings cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. See the decisions of the Supreme Court in MADHAVRAO v. SAMBHAJIRAO, and MEDCHL CHEMICALS AND PHARMA PVT. LTD. V. M/s. BIOLOGICAL E LTD. .
7. Now let us apply that litmus test to the case on hand.
8. As already noted, the petitioner in her maintenance petition, filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., clearly stated that: the respondent has married her on 9-2-1953 as per the Hindu rites and caste customs, the marriage was consummated, she and the respondent were living together happily thereafter, she gave birth to a male child on 22-11-1955, some years later the respondent developed illicit intimacy with one Mangamma Tiwari of Rajahmundry and started neglecting her and her son, her repeated requests yielded no favourable response from the respondent, from 1997 onwards the respondent has also stopped payment monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month, she has no means to live on her own, the respondent is a rich man and, therefore, she is entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. These averments clearly indicate a prima facie case for maintenance.
9. Since the result of the test is thus positive, her petition cannot be quashed on the mere ground that her son made certain admissions regarding the validity of her marriage with the respondent in a civil suit filed by him against the respondent and others for partition. It may be that the petitioner has referred to the said suit filed by her son in her maintenance petition, but by that it cannot readily be inferred that she has filed the maintenance case knowing fully well that she is not the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Whether she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and whether she is entitled to maintenance or not are the questions that are to be decided in the said proceedings after considering the evidence let in by both the parties. Therefore, I do not find any valid ground or reason to quash the proceedings at the threshold.
10. For the aforementioned reasons, the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that considering the advanced age of the respondent, his presence before the trial Court may be dispensed with as provided under sub-Section (2) of Section 126 Cr.P.C.
12. I do not propose to pass any such order now. It is, however, open to the respondent to move the trial Court for such a relief.
13. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.