The customary form of marriage under Buddhist customs and the prima facie satisfaction of marital status for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 1 ) BY this application under section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant challenges the order passed by learned additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Criminal Revision No. 49/1997, directing the applicant to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 4007- per month to the non-applicant.

( 2 ) THE facts, which gave rise to the present proceeding are as under. Non-applicant Shobha Nandeshwar claims to have been married to applicant Jagdish after she had carried the applicants child in her womb. Since, the applicant neglected and failed to maintain her, in spite of the fact that he owns four acre land and also earns Rs. 50/- per day from agricultural labour, the said Shobha filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal procedure before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakoli. She claimed maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from applicant Jagdish.

( 3 ) JAGDISH filed reply, denying that Shobha was married to him as per the customs or the prevalent rites applicable to Buddhists. He denied having consented to any such marriage, though he admitted that Shobha was carrying pregnancy of nine months and also that she had given report to Police Station arjuni Morgaon against Jagdish. He also admitted that Shobha had delivered a child in a hospital at Nawegaon Bandh and that the child died. He claimed that he was a teenage student of Junior College and, therefore, neither possessed any means nor any income, to be able to pay any maintenance to Shobha.

( 4 ) UPON consideration of the evidence tendered before him, the learned judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakoli rejected the application of Shobha for grant of maintenance, holding that the marriage was not proved. When Shobha took the matter in revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the learned Additional Sessions Judge reversed the order passed by the learned magistrate, holding that the marriage was proved and that Jagdish was liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month to Shobha. Aggrieved thereby, Jagdish has preferred this application.

( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for applicant Jagdish and also learned counsel for non-applicant Shobha.

( 6 ) RELYING on the decision of this Court in Babi w/o Jayant Jagtap vs. Jayant Mahadeo Jagtap and others reported at 1981 Mh. LJ. 614, the learned counsel for applicant Jagdish stated that customary ceremony of Buddhist marriage enumerated in the aforesaid judgment had not been proved to have been followed in the present case. Therefore, according to him, the learned trial magistrate had rightly concluded that the marriage was not proved. The learned counsel assailed the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the law does not require strict proof of ceremonies and rites of the marriage for the purpose of invocation of jurisdiction under section 125 of the Code.

( 7 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge had observed that some sort of ceremony and formalities were observed by the parties at the time of marriage and, therefore, it was a valid marriage for the purpose of section 125 of the Code. The learned Judge had observed that unless the provision of section 5 of the hindu Marriage Act is shown to have been violated, the marriage would not be void and since such was not the present case, the marriage was valid, entitling shobha to maintenance allowance.

( 8 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the ceremonies referred to in Babi w/o Jayant Jagtap vs. Jayant Mahadeo Jagtap and others have not been proved has to be rejected because decision in Babi w/o jayant Jagtap vs. Jayant Mahadeo Jagtap and others came in the context of the offence punishable under section 494 read with 109 of the Penal Code. In that case, the complainant alleged that she was married to accused according to the buddhist rites, which she had described in her complaint. It was the allegation of the complainant that during the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document