Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This petition arises out of roceedings taken under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. The 1st petitioner before this Court claims to be the wife of the respondent and the petitioners 2 and 3 are said to be her minor children born to the respondent. The 1st petitioner claimed a total sum of Rs. 150/- per month towards maintenance of herself and her 3 minor children. After the enquiry the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. The petitioners challenge the correctness of the said order passed by the learned Magistrate in this revision petition.

10. The petitioner No. 1 has stated that she got married to the respondent at Tirupa-thi. She has not been asked what were the ceremonies that she underwent during the said marriage. There is no evidence to show that she has not undergone the ceremonies necessary for a valid marriage. In the notice. Ext. P-2, given by her to the respondent, she has stated that she has undergone the marriage according to the religious rites. In the Supreme Court decision mentioned above , their Lordships were considering a case of prosecution for bigamy under Section 494, Indian Penal Code and in that context their Lordships held that the prosecution should prove that the marriage has been duly solemnized. It has to be remembered that proceedings under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code are summary in nature, meant to prevent vagrancy. The standard of proof of marriage in proceedings under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code need not be so high as required in prosecutions for bigamy or proceedings under the Divorce Act. In this connection, reference may made to the proviso to Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 50 reads as follows:--

"The question is, whether A and B were married. The fact that they were usually received and treated by friends as husband and wife is relevant."

It is pertinent to point out that the proviso does not refer to proceedings under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. It only says that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act or in prosecutions under the Indian Penal Code for bigamy, etc.

11. In , Narasimham, J., (as he then was) has pointed out that Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code is not included in the proviso to Section 50 of the Evidence Act, Hence, for proving a marriage in proceedings under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, the standard of proof need not be so high as required in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act or in prosecutions under Sections 494, Indian Penal Code, His Lordship observed that even an opinion expressed by conduct of persons who had special means of knowledge on the subject, may suffice to prove the fact of marriage in a proceeding under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code.

12. It is contended by Sri Deshpande that the said Orissa decision may not be a good law in view of the later decision of the Supreme Court referred to earlier, i.e., . He also contends that after the Hindu Marriage Act came into force, the requirements laid down in Section 7 should be fully complied with to prove a marriage. As already pointed out, the Supreme Court decision dealt with the case of a prosecution for bigamy and did not consider the question of proof of marriage arising under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act and the proviso stand unaltered. It therefore follows that the strict proof required for proving a marriage in a criminal prosecution or in proceedings under the Divorce Act, is not necessary in a summary proceeding under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. It may be pointed out that even though the Criminal Court may come to the conclusion in a proceeding under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code that the parties are husband and wife, if a Civil Court gives a different finding on the point, the Criminal Court should alter its finding. In this connection, it is pertinent to point out Sub-section (2) of Section 489, Criminal Procedure Code which reads as follows:--