PYLA MUTYALAMMA @ SATYAVATHI versus PYLA SURI DEMUDU & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 9 S.C.R. 996 · Decided: 09-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 996
1 
""' 
... 
A 
PYLA MUTYALAMMA @ SATYAVATHI 
v. 
PYLA SURI DEMUDU & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 2007) 
AUGUST 9, 2011 
. 
8 
~ 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Code o;f Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
c 
s.125 - Maintenance -· Claim for, entitlement - Held: 
There is no quarrel with the legal position that during the 
subsistence of the first marriage and existence of a living wife 
(first wife), the claim of maintEmance by the second wife cannot 
be entertained - But proof and evidence of subsistence of an 
< 
D earlier marriage at the time of solemnizing the second 
mam·age, has to be adducec1 by the husband taking the plea 
of subsistence of an earlier marriage and when a plea of 
subsisting marriage is raised by the respondent-husband, it 
has to be satisfactorily provEid by tendering evidence - In the 
E instant case, respondent-husband failed to establish his plea 
that his earlier marriage was at all in subsistence which he 
claims to have been perfonned in the year 1970 as he has 
not led even an iota of evidence in support of his earlier 
marriage - This strong circumstance was heavily against the 
' 
F 
respondent .. husband. 
s.125 -- Essential req11irements of - Held: When the 
husband denies that the applicant is not his wife, all that the 
Magistrate has to find, in a proceeding uls.125 is whether there 
was some marriage ceremony between the parties, whether 
G they lived as husband and wife in the eyes of their neighbours, 
whether children were borne, out of the union - If the evidence 
' 
I 
led in a proceeding uls. 125 raises a presumption that the 
applicant was the wife of the, respondent, it would be sufficient 
for the Ma!1istrate to pass an order granting maintenance 
H 
996 
PYLA MUTYALAMMA @ SATYAVATHI v. PYLA SURI 997 
DEMUDU & ANR. 
'""") 
-\ 
under the proceeding - In a case u/s. 125, the Magistrate has 
A 
to take prima facie view of the matter and it is not necessary 
for the Magistrate to go into matrimonial disparity between the 
parties in detail in order to deny maintenance to the claimant 
' 
wife - s. 125 proceeds on de facto marriage and not marriage 
"' 
de jure - Thus, validity of the marriage will not be a ground 
B 
for refusal of maintenance if other requirements of s. 125 are 
fulfilled - In the instant case, appellant had succeeded in . 
proving that she was the legally married wife of the respondent 
with three children out of which one had expired while the other 
two were major and well-settled ""'." It was further proved that the c 
respondent-husband started deserting the appellant-wife after 
almost 25 years of marriage and in order to avert the claim 
of maintenance, a story of previous marriage was set up for 
which he failed to furnish any proof much less clear proof -
Thus, it was not open for the High Court under its revisional D 
jurisdiction to set aside the finding of the trial court and 
absolve the respondent from paying the maintenance of 
Rs.5001- per month to the appellant-wife. 
Revisional jurisdiction: Scope of -
Maintenance 
E 
application filed u/s.125 Cr.P.C. by the appellant against the 
respondent on the ground that the appellant married the 
j 
respondent in the year 1974 as per Hindu rites and customs 
~ 
after which they lived as a normal couple and out of the 
wedlock 3 children were born - Trial court awarded Rs.500 
p.m. in favour of the appellant - On revision, High Court set 
F 
aside the award on the ground that there was no valid 
marriage between the respondent and the appellant, as an 
earlier marriage between the respondent with his previous wife 
was subsisting and since the marriage with the appellant was 
performed without repudiation of the earlier marriage, the 
G 
subsequent marriage with the appellant was not a valid one 
and, therefore, no maintenance was payable to her ...:- On 
appeal, held: High Court in its revisional jurisdiction ought not 
to have entered into a scrutiny of the finding recorded by the 
trial court that the appellant was a married wife of the 
H 
998 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 9 S.C.R. 
...... 
,_ 
A respondent as it is well-settled that the revisional court can 
interfere only if there is any illegality in the order or there is 
any material irregularity in the procedure or there is an error 
of jurisdiction - High Court under its revisional jurisdiction is 
not required to enter into re-·appreciation of evidence recorded 
B in the order granting maintEmance - In 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.