Raju alias Rajkumar v. Smt. Pushpa Devi : 1999 Cri.L.J. 2294 : 1999 (1) Mar.L.J. 626 : 1998 (2) RajLR 753 : 1998 (3) RajLW 1726 : 1999 (2) CivCC 506 : 1999 (2) DMC 32 : 1999 (2) HLR 560 : 1999 (1) RCR (Cri) 303 : (2001) (Supp) AllCrC 616 : (1998) CriLR 756 : (1998) 2 RajCric 680 : (1999) 2 WLC 81 : 1998 LRC Online 10 (Raj)
Section 125---Grant of maintenance---Entitlement---Clear admission by wife that no engagement ceremony had taken place before marriage and marriage was solemnized by garlanding her husband---Factum of marriage not proved as no saptapadi took place at the time of solemnization of marriage---Wife not entitled to maintenance---Order granting maintenance to wife set aside---Petition allowed.
Held : It is an admitted case of the non-petitioner No. 1 that the petitioner Raju alias Rajkumar belongs to Modi caste. According to Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. In the instant case, there is no evidence at all to show that the petitioner Raju alias Rajkumar agreed to solemnize the marriage in accordance with the rites and ceremonies prevalent in the Naik community. Therefore, it will have to be inferred that if at all any marriage was intended to take place between the petitioner and the non-petitioner No. 1, the ceremonies and rites necessary for a valid marriage among the Modis were necessary. Besides, in the absence of evidence to show that among the Naiks of Rajasthan, Saptapadi is not essential for a valid marriage, it would be presumed that Naiks being an integral part of the Hindu community do follow the normal Hindu rites and traditions, and therefore, Saptapadi is essential for a valid marriage. Thus, from either angle, it appears that Saptapadi was essential for a valid marriage between the petitioner and the non-petitioner No. 1.
In her cross-examination, the non-petitioner No. 1 has clearly admitted that no engagement ceremony had taken place before her marriage and at the time of solemnizing of the marriage, no "Pandit" was present and the marriage was solemnized by garlanding her husband. In view of this admission of the non-petitioner No. 1, it must be inferred that at the time of alleged solemnizing of the marriage, Saptapadi did not take place and as such a valid marriage within the meaning of Section 7 did not come into existence.
For the reasons mentioned above, I find force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below have committed a grave error of law as well as fact in coming to the conclusion that a valid marriage had taken place between the petitioner and the non-petitioner No. 1 Smt. Pushpa Devi. In view of this finding, it must be held that the non-petitioner No. 1 has not been proved to be the legally married wife of the petitioner, and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance allowance Under Section 125, Cr. P.C.