Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Kumar Jain vs Smt. Asha Jain on 2 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68064
1 MCRC-6223-2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI
ON THE 2 nd OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6223 of 2008
RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN
Versus
SMT. ASHA JAIN
Appearance:
Ms.Ankita Khare - counsel for the petitioner
None for the respondent
ORDER
This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C challenging the order dated 30/07/2007 passed by learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No.115/2007 and Criminal Revision No.171/2007 and order dated 17/02/2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in Criminal Case No.15857/2006.
2. Brief facts for adjudication of the case are as under :-
(a) The first spouse of petitioner and respondent had passed away.
Thereafter, on 03/07/2003 the petitioner and the respondent as per their consent and with the consent of their respective family members decided to live together as husband and wife. For the said purpose, in the presence of their relatives, they exchanged garlands at a Jain temple situated in village Ghansour, Jabalpur.
(b) In the year 2006, respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of maintenance Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 19-12-2025 16:23:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68064 2 MCRC-6223-2008 against the petitioner, alleging that she had solemnized marriage with the petitioner by exchange of garlands and, thereafter, resided with him as his wife. It is further alleged that after about three months the petitioner turned her out of the matrimonial home and since then she has been residing at her parental house. The respondent asserted that she has no independent source of income to maintain herself and earn her livelihood.
(c) In reply, the petitioner submitted that he never solemnized marriage with the respondent under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. He contended that mere exchange of garlands cannot be presumed to constitute a valid marriage. It is further submitted that the respondent as per her own volition left his house and has been residing at her parental home.
Therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance.
(d) The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, vide order dated 07/02/2007, dismissed the application for maintenance; however, a finding was recorded that the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent and the petitioner, by filing sepreate- separate revisions, challenged the legality, validity, and propriety of the said order dated 07/02/2007 before the 11th Additional Sessions Judge.
(e) Learned Revisional Court heard both the revisions analogously and vide common order dated 30/07/2007, dismissed both the revisions, holding that the learned trial Court had not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order.
(f) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition, challenging the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 19-12-2025 16:23:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68064 3 MCRC-6223-2008 as affirmed by the Revisional Court, to the extent it holds the respondent to be the wife of the petitioner.
(2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent in accordance with the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act. It is further contended that mere exchange of garlands does not give rise to a presumption of a valid marriage. Consequently, the respondent is not entitled to the status of wife. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Dolly Rani Vs. Manish Kaur Chanchal reported in 2024 SCC online SC 754, wherein the Apex Court in paragraphs 21, 22, and 23, has held that a Hindu marriage is required to be governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the absence of solemnization of marriage in accordance with the provisions of the Act, a man and a woman cannot acquire the status of husband and wife.
The relevant paragraphs 21, 22, 23 are reproduced as under :-
21 With the passage of centuries and the enactment of the Act, monogamy is the only legally approved from of relationship between a husband and a wife. The Act has categorically discarded polyandry and polygamy and all other such types of relationships. The intent of the Parliament is also that there should be only one form of marriage having varied rites and customs and rituals. Thus, when the Act came into force on 18/05/1955, it ha amended and codified the law relating to marriage among Hindus.Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 19-12-2025 16:23:19
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68064 4 MCRC-6223-2008 The Act encompasses not only Hindus as such but Lingayats, Brahmos, Aryasamajists, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs also who can enter into a valid Hindu marriage coming within the expansive connotation of the word Hindu.
22. Section 4 of the Act is important and it gives an overriding effect to the Act and it repeals all existing laws whether in the shape of enactments, custom or usage inconsistent with the Act. Of course, the said Section also saves anything otherwise expressing provided under the Act. For immediate reference, Section 4 of the Act is extracted as under:-
4 Overriding effect of the Act-Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act-
(a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matte for which provision is made in this Act;
(b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect insofar as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act.
23 In effect a union of two persons under the provisions of the Act, by way of a Hindu marriage gives them the status and character of being a husband and wife in society. The said status is of significance inasmuch as a man and a woman cannot be treated as a husband and a wife unless a marriage is performed or Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 19-12-2025 16:23:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68064 5 MCRC-6223-2008 celebrated with proper and due ceremonies and in the prescribed form. In the absence of any solemnization of a marriage as per the provisions of the Act, a man and a woman cannot acquire the status of being a husband and a wife to each other. In the above context, we deprecate the practice of young men and women seeking to acquire the status of being a husband and a wife to each other and therefore purportedly being married, in the absence of a valid marriage ceremony under the provisions of the Act such as in the instant case where the marriage between the parties was to take place later.
(3) Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment passed by co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Manju and another vs. State of M.P and others, 2019 SCC online MP 2953 wherein Co-ordinate Bench of this Court refused to entertain the writ petition filed by a woman seeking protection of her marital life, holding that mere exchange of garlands does not entitle a person to acquire the status of wife.
(3) Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. (4) Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act deals with the condition for Hindu Marriage which reads as under:-
5. Conditions for a Hindu marriage.-
A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:
(i)neither party has a spouse living at the time of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 19-12-2025 16:23:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68064 6 MCRC-6223-2008 marriage;
(ii)at the time of the marriage, neither party
(a)is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or
(b)though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or
(c)has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity
(iii)the bridegroom has completed the age of twenty-one years and the bride, the age of eighteen years at the time of the marriage;
(iv)the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two;
(v)the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two;
(4) Section 8 of said Act deals with the registration of hindu marriage. The provision of Section 8 is reproduced as under:-
For the purpose of facilitating the proof of Hindu marriages, the State Government may make rules providing that the parties to any such marriage may have the particulars relating to their marriage entered in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in a Hindu Marriage Register kept for the purpose.
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the State Government may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, provide that the entering of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 19-12-2025 16:23:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68064
7 MCRC-6223-2008 particulars referred to in sub-section (1) shall be compulsory in the State or in any part thereof, whether in all cases or in such cases as may be specified, and where any such direction has been issued, any person contravening any rule made in this behalf shall be punishable with fine which may extend to twenty-five rupees.
All rules made under this section shall be laid before the State Legislature, as soon as may be, after they are made. The Hindu Marriage Register shall at all reasonable times be open for inspection, and shall be admissible as evidence of the statements therein contained and certified extracts therefrom shall, on application, be given by the Registrar on payment to him of the prescribed fee.
Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the validity of any Hindu marriage shall in no way be affected by the omission to make the entry.
(5) Section 125 of Cr.P.C deals with the order for maintenance or of wives, children and parents. Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C is reproduced as under
:-
If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain;
his wife, unable to maintain herself, or his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, A Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct;
Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 19-12-2025 16:23:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68064
8 MCRC-6223-2008 female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.
Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this Sub-Section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct;
Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.
For the purposes of this Chapter
a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority;
b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.
(6) The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 141, referred the matter to the larger Bench holding that proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are of a summary nature and where a man and a woman have lived together for a long and considerable period as husband and wife, presumption of marriage may be drawn for the limited purpose of granting maintenance.
(7) The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Kamala and Others v.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 19-12-2025 16:23:19NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68064 9 MCRC-6223-2008 M.R. Mohan Kumar, reported in (2019) 11 SCC 732, in paragraph 20 has held that where a man and a woman have lived together as husband and wife, there is sufficient proof of marriage for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Paragraph 20 is reproduced as under:-
20 On the basis of the evidence of appellant No.1 (PW-1), birth certificates of appellant Nos.2 and 3 (Exts. P7-P8 dated 25.05.2001 and 06.08.2003), other documentary evidence, oral evidence of PW-2 who was co-worker of appellant No.1 and PW-
3-landlord, the family court held that appellant No.1 and the respondent were living together as husband and wife and there is sufficient proof of marriage. The family court rightly drew the presumption of valid marriage between appellant No.1 and the respondent and that they are legally married couple for claiming maintenance by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is summary in nature. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with the birth certificates of appellants No.2 and 3 and other evidences clearly establish the factum of marriage.
(8) In the present case, it is not in dispute that the first spouses of the petitioner and the respondent had died and both of them with their own free will decided to reside together as husband and wife. For that purpose, in the presence of their relatives, they exchanged garlands at a Jain temple and thereafter started living together as husband and wife. The petitioner has never denied the fact that the respondent resided with him as his wife, though it is also not in dispute that the respondent subsequently left the petitioner's house.
(9) Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court reaches the conclusion that both the Courts below have not committed any error in holding the respondent to be the wife of the petitioner, by Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 19-12-2025 16:23:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68064 10 MCRC-6223-2008 drawing a presumption of marriage, as the parties had resided together as husband and wife for a considerable period, for the limited purpose of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(10) Thus, the petition filed by the petitioner fails and is hereby dismissed.
(11) However, it is clarified that the findings recorded by both the Courts below, treating the respondent as the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, cannot be accorded approval for any purpose other than the grant of maintenance.
(AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI) JUDGE S /-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 19-12-2025 16:23:19