IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a woman in the position of the petitioner, as the second wife, is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. even if the husband suppressed his first marriage, based on the principle of achieving social justice and the presumption of marital relationship.

ORDER :

The instant revision petition is filed by the petitioner-wife challenging the order dated 02.01.2018 passed in C.Mis.No.73/2016 by the Family Court in dismissing the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., for maintenance.

2. It is the case set out by the petitioner that she is the wife of the respondent and out of the wedlock between them, a son is born by name Vivekananda. It is stated that after the marriage, initially for few years, both the petitioner and respondent were living cordially, but thereafter for no reason, the respondent has started neglecting the petitioner and child. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., for seeking maintenance, but the said petition was dismissed by the Family Court on the reason that the petitioner is not legally wedded wife, but she is the second wife. Hence, the Family Court dismissed the claim petition.

3. It is the defence of the respondent before the Family Court that the petitioner is a stranger and petitioner is not the wife of the respondent and child is not born to him. Therefore, the respondent has taken the contention that the petitioner is a stranger and do not have any relationship. Therefore, justified the order passed by the Family Court.

4. Heard the arguments from both sides and produced the records.

5. The point that arises for my consideration is as follows:

“Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the petitioner is entitled for maintenance, even though, she is proved to be the second wife of the respondent when the husband suppressed first marriage and solemnized second marriage? ”

6. The Family Court upon appreciating the evidence on record has disbelieved the photos at Ex.P.1 produced by the petitioner that the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband by observing that photos are not taken in the marriage, but taken in some other function in the house. Therefore, the Family Court has assigned the reason that the said photos at Ex.P.1 are showing both petitioner and respondent and others have taken together, but they are not marriage photos. But upon considering the evidence of P.W.2 and evidence of the respondent-husband has held that the petitioner is not legally wedded wife of the respondent and has refused to grant maintenance to the petitioner-wife.

7. In this background, whether under what circumstances if woman is proved to be not legally wedded wife, but second wife of the husband and if second marriage has taken place suppressing the first marriage of the husband, is entitled to maintenance are not is the question to be considered here.

8. When the petition is filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., by the wife for seeking maintenance, the proceeding is summary in nature (Rajnesh Vs. Neha, AIR 2021 SC 569). There is no strict proof of marriage is required to be considered in these types of proceedings filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The evidence regarding marriage and status of living as husband and wife is to be considered on all its preponderance of probabilities upon appreciating the evidence produced in the petition. Therefore, in this regard, as per the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions, the instant case is required to be considered as proceedings is summary in nature and evidence is considered on all its preponderance of probabilities.

9. The petitioner has claimed that she is the wife of the respondent. Ex.P1 is the photos showing that the petitioner and respondent are garlanding each other. Further the photos prove that there is a child on the lap of the petitioner. It is not disputed by the respondent that both the petitioner and respondent are not appearing in the photographs. It is only the defence of the respondent that in the photographs he does not know who are other persons. It is the case of the petitioner that both the petitioner and respondent were studying in Bachelor of Arts in Siddaganga College, Tumkur and the p