LexDWARIKA PRASAD SATPATHY versus BIDYUT PRAVA DIXIT AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A DWARIKA PRASAD SATPATHY v. BIDYUT PRA VA DIXIT AND ANR. OCTOBER 14, 1999 B [K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] Criminal Procedure Code, ·1973: Section 125--Marriage--Proof-Standard of-Husband contended that C the marriage was perf onned under duress at knifepoint and, therefore, it was an invalid marriage-Held: The standard of proof of marriage in a proceed- ing under S.125 is not as strict as is required in a trial for bigamy under S.494 !PC-Once it is admitted that the marriage procedure is fallowed it is not necessary to establish that it is complete as per the relevant rites-Hence, High Court rightly held that considering the standard of proof under S.125 the wife D had proved the marriage-Evidence Act, 1872, Ss. 102 and 103-Penal Code, 1860, S.494. Section 125--Marriage-Presumption of-Rebuttable-Held: If the claimant proves that she and her alleged husband lived together as husband E and wife, court can presume that they are legally wedded-However, this presumption is rebuttable--Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.50 and 114. Section 125-Summary remedy-Held : Order under S.125 does not finally detennine the rights and obligations of the parties-The Section only provides for maintenance of destitute wife, children and parents-Parties may F approach Civil court for declaration of status. Section 125--Maintenance--Wife, children and parents-Rights under-Husband did not dispute paternity of child and accepted fact of marriage ceremony-Held : Under these circumstances, husband cannot con- G tend in proceedings under S.125 that there is no valid marriage as essential rites are not perfonned. Section 125-Maintenance-Patemity-Denial of-Father denied pater- nity of child-Also refused to undergo DNA test-Effect-Held : Father is disentitled to dispute paternity of child-Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.112 and 114 H III(g). 684 • < '> D.P. SATPATHYv. B.P. DIXIT 685 Respondent No. 1 married t.he appellant in a temple in presence of A witnesses. After the marriage respondent No. 1. was persuaded to stay at her paternal house on the ground. that the appellant's father might not accept her as his daughter-in-law. At that time she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy. Respondent No. 1 stayed at her parental house and within 3 to 4 days she gave birth to a female child. However, the appellant B and respondent No. 1 continued to live separately. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for maintenance for herself and her daughter. The appellant contended before the Magistrate that he was forced to undergo the marriage ceremony at knifepoint and, therefore, c there was no valid marriage. The Magistrate allowed the application. However, the Appellate Court set aside the maintenance granted to respon- dent No. 1 but upheld that granted to the minor daughter. The appellant and respondent No. 1 filed revision applications before the High Court, which dismissed the application of the appellant D '"~ and allowed that of respondent No. 1. The High Court held that the marriage was solemnized in the temple and negatived the contention of the appellant that the marriage ceremony was forcibly held at knifepoint. The High Court further held that the child was born out of the relationship between the appellant and respondent No.1. E In the appeal before this Court, the appellant contended that there was no valid marriage between him and respondent No. 1; that he was not the father of the child and that he was not willing to undergo the DNA test. Dismissing the appeal, this Court F HELD : 1. Validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties. The standard of proof of marriage in such proceedings is not as G strict as is required in a trial for an offence under Section 494 of. the Penal Code, 1860. If the claimant in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code succeeds in showing that she and the respondent have lived together as -:::}> husband and wife, the Court can presume that they are legally wedded spouses, and in such a situation, the party who denies the marital status can rebut the presumption. Undisputedly, the marriage procedure' was H 686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A followed in the temple. The appellant contended before the Magistrate that the said marriage was perf
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.