IMPORTANT POINT
Magistrate is not expected nor does Section 125 (2) Cr. P. C. insists for giving reasons for granting maintenance from the date of application.

ORDER

K.P. Balanarayana Marar, J. - The order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod awarding maintenance to respondent and confirmed by the Sessions Court in revision is challenged in this Crl. Miscellaneous Case.

2. Respondent moved the Magistrate by M.C. No. 22 of 1991 claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month alleging that petitioner who had married her on 28.12.1986 had left her at her house and had refused and neglected to maintain her. Petitioner resisted the claim on various grounds. He contended that respondent was a woman of weak intellect and the marriage was null and void for that reason. He further contended that an important ceremony, 'dhara ceremony', was not conducted and the marriage was on thus void for that reason. He disclaimed liability to pay maintenance and questioned the correctness of the amount claimed. The Magistrate on an appreciation of the evidence on both sides found petitioner liable to pay maintenance and directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- per month. This amount was ordered to be paid from the date of the petition. The Sessions Court on revision agreed with the findings of the Magistrate and declined to interfere. Hence this Crl. M.C. under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. Heard counsel for petitioner.

The main contention advanced by learned counsel for petitioner is that the courts below have committed an illegality in finding that a valid marriage relationship existed between the parties. The specific contention advanced by petitioner before the Magistrate was that 'dhara cereriiony' which is the most crucial and important ceremony was not performed and no evidence was adduced by respondent to prove performance of that ceremony. The Magistrate and the Sessions Judge repelled this contention and according to me, for proper reasons. Respondent as PW 1 has spoken about the performance of this ceremony. True, petitioner has denied that fact. The trial Magistrate placed reliance on the testimony of PW 1 and found the 'dhara ceremony' to have been performed. The Sessions Court observed that the Magistrate was right in choosing to accept the oral evidence of PW 1 on this aspect. No error has been committed by the courts below in holding so.

Moreover, there was satisfactory evidence on record to show that parties had gone through religious rites and ceremonies with the intention of becoming man and wife and had lived together as husband and wife thereafter. Exts. P-1 and P-2 are the invitation cards got printed by the parents of the bride and bridegroom inviting people for the marriage. Exts. P-3 to P-7 are the photographs taken on the occasion of marriage along with the negatives. Respondent was able to produce sufficient and satisfactory material to show that a valid marriage has taken place between the parties and they had gone through the religious rites and ceremonies in connection thereto. The plea that 'dhara ceremony' was not performed and for that reason the marriage is invalid was rightly' discounted by the courts below.

4. Counsel has raised a further contention that the Magistrate has committed an error in directing petitioner to pay maintenance from the date of the petition. According to him, the allowance should have been made payable only from the date of the order. It is also pointed out that special reasons had not been given by the Magistrate why a direction was given to pay maintenance from the date of the petition. The Sessions Judge has expressed unhappiness over the failure on the part of the Magistrate to advert to reasons that prompted him to exercise the discretion in favour of the respondent. Still, the Sessions Judge refused to interfere on that aspect also. On hearing counsel and on an interpretation of sub-section (2) of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the direction of the Magistrate is found to be perfectly justified and it was not right on the part of the Sessions Judge to have expressed unhappiness on the discretion exerci