In a maintenance application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant must adduce sufficient evidence to establish her claim, but the standard of proof is not as high as that required in a criminal case. If the applicant fails to adduce sufficient evidence, the application will be dismissed.

JUDGMENT - N.K. PAREKH, J.:---The petitioner is this matter in the original opponent in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 39 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamkhed. He has filed this petition to quash the said proceedings and the orders passed therein.

2. The petitioners case is that he was married to one Suman Shankar Bandal (who for brevity's sake is hereinafter referred to as the applicant) in or about 1971. That two months later, she left the matrimonial home. That she thereafter filed a criminal application being Criminal Application No. 18 of 1974 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamkhed. In this application, she claimed maintenance. That she also filed another case being Case No. 124 of 1974, inter alia, contending that the opponent petitioner has married some other lady and had committed bigamy. That the petitioner himself had filed a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act being Petition No. 22 of 1974 against the applicant/1st respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. That the said Criminal Application No. 18 of 1974 was compromised on 26th December, 1977. That it was, inter alia, agreed that the applicant/1st respondent should go back to the opponent/petitioner. That in Case No. 14 of 1974 the opponent/petitioner was discharged. That after the compromise arrived at on 26th December, 1977, the applicant 1st respondent came back to the opponent petitioner and they cohabited together. That thereafter the applicant/1st respondent filed a case being Case No. 78 of 1978 in the Court of J.M.F.C., Jamkhed, inter alia, contending that on 10th April, 1978, the opponent petitioner, has assaulted her, (the applicant/1st respondent) with a stick and a hunter. That she was driven out of the house. That she was forced to take refuge elsewhere. That three days later, she had approached, Dr. Pande, who had treated her injuries. That in view of this she could not return to the house of the opponent petitioner. That in this case, however, he, the opponent/petitioner. That in this case, however, he, the opponent petitioner was acquitted. That thereafter, the applicant/1st respondent filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 39 of 1978 in the Court of J.M.F.C., Jamkhed claiming a maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month. In this application, she contended that she was being ill-treated, and hence was obliged to leave the matrimonial home and secondly that the opponent petitioner had contracted a second marriage. In these proceedings, the opponent/petitioner denied these allegations. On the other hand, he contended that the applicant/1st respondent was vagrant and time and again ran away from the matrimonial home. This matter was proceeded with and during the course of matter, the applicant examined herself and one Dr. Pande. The opponent/petitioner, on his part, examined himself and his brother Manik. By an order and judgment dated 26th November, 1979, the learned J.M.F.C., Jamkhed, held that the applicant/1st respondent had proved the second marriage. Not only this but he also held that an incident had taken place on 10th April, 1978 wherein the applicant/1st respondent was assaulted and this constituted ill-treatment by the opponent/petitioner. In view of this, the learned Magistrate proceeded to award a maintenance of Rs. 50/- per month to the applicant/1st respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order the opponent/petitioner filed a revision in the Court of the Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. This application came to be numbered as Criminal Revision Application No. 24 of 1980. This application was disposed of by an order and judgment dated 15th September, 1980. In this order and judgment, the learned Extra Additional Sessions Judge held that the second marriage was not proved. However, on the question of ill-treatment, the learned Extra Additional Sessions Judge held that since the learned Magistrate had, in view of the incident of 10th April, 1978, hel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document