In proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term 'wife' to include cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a pre-condition for maintenance under Section 125.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Mulimani, J. - Revision petition is posted for Admission after notice to respondent.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Family Court.

3. The order dated 20.01.2015 passed by the Additional Judge, Family Court, Mysuru in C.Misc.317/2011 is called in question in this revision petition whereby, learned Judge has passed the order directing respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.4,500/- per month to petitioner from the date of petition. It is this order which is called in question on various grounds as set out in this petition.

4. Sri.Manish Aradya, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the order of the Family Court suffers from serious infirmity and the same is liable to be set aside. He submitted that the Family Court has failed to appreciate oral and documentary evidence available on record.

Next, he contended that there is no relationship of husband and wife between petitioner and respondent. There are no materials to show that the marriage was performed on 12.12.2010. Counsel submitted that claim petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

A further submission was made that respondent is married to one Lakshmi and he is blessed with two children. He has been living with them happily ever since their marriage. Therefore, he submitted that learned Judge is not justified in treating petitioner as the wife of respondent.

It has been contended that learned Judge has erred in coming to the conclusion that a female child is born to the respondent through petitioner, by placing reliance on the evidence given in the criminal matter.

Lastly, he contended that the learned Judge has misinterpreted the law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court. Accordingly, counsel submitted that the revision petition may be allowed by setting aside the order of the Family Court.

5. Heard and perused the order with care.

The short facts are these; - Petitioner stated that she is the legally wedded wife of respondent and it was a love marriage. The marriage was performed on 12.12.2010 at Ganapathi Temple near Nanjundeshwara Temple, Nanjangud. After the marriage, they lived together as husband and wife, and petitioner discharged her duty as a dutiful wife.

Petitioner averred that respondent failed to fulfill his marital obligation and thus, she was constrained to file a complaint to the Help Line and requested the concerned authorities to take suitable action against respondent. The efforts of petitioner and that of Help Line went in vain. Contending that respondent is having sufficient means and capacity, neglected and refused to maintain her, she brought action under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

It is relevant to note that respondent has specifically denied his relationship with petitioner. It has been specifically contended that petitioner is not the legally wedded wife and hence, petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is not maintainable.

To substantiate her claim, petitioner relied upon the marriage photograph and the DNA report. As could be seen from the order, learned Judge in extenso considered the material evidence on record and found that respondent married petitioner in a temple by exchanging garlands which is evident from Exs.P1 and P9. Petitioner has been treated as legally wedded wife by respondent. Therefore, Judge has held that petitioner should be treated as wife and accordingly, she is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

In this Court, respondent adhered to the contention that petitioner is not the legally wedded wife, hence, claim petition is not maintainable. I find myself unable to accept this contention.

It is perhaps well to observe that unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., such strict standard of proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy. In DWARIKA PRASAD SATPATHY v. BIDYUT PRAVA