The lack of sufficient evidence for a valid marriage prevents entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, as demonstrated by insufficient cohabitation and public recognition.

JUDGMENT :

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.

1. The instant revision is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 19^th November, 2022 passed in Maintenance Case No. 124 of 2018 by the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Begusarai, whereby and whereunder, the application under Section 125 of the CrPC was rejected by the learned Principal Judge and as a consequence thereof, Maintenance Case No. 124/2018 was dismissed.

2. The petitioner is the wife in the Maintenance Case before this Court, challenging the impugned order dated 19^th November 2022.

3. Marriage between the Petitioner and the Opposite Party was solemnized on 31.01.2016 as per Hindu rites and rituals, at the maternal house of the Petitioner in Vishnupur (District Begusarai). The Bank of Baroda employed the Opposite Party and posted in Mumbai (Maharashtra). After the wedding ceremony on 31.01.2016, the petitioner and the opposite party stayed together at Vishnupur (maternal house of the Petitioner) for 4 days and consummated their marriage. Thereafter, the Opposite Party left the Petitioner at her maternal home and went to Mumbai on the pretext of joining his job. The Opposite Party promised the Petitioner that he would return after obtaining leave from his office and take her to her matrimonial house at Rahua (District -Begusarai) and then to Mumbai. For the next 4-5 months, the Opposite Party regularly talked to the Petitioner over phone and even transferred money into her bank account to maintain herself. The Opposite Party even visited the petitioner at her maternal home. However, the Opposite Party refused to take her either to her matrimonial house in Rahua or Mumbai.

4. Soon, the Opposite Party started demanding Rs. 10 Lakhs dowry from the Petitioner and her family and refused to keep the Petitioner as wife, if his demands were not met. Other family members of the Opposite Party i.e. his mother, father, and brother started calling the Petitioner, making demand for Rs. 10 Lakhs. The Petitioner along with her family members visited her matrimonial house at Rahua but was ill-treated by her in-laws. The in-laws of the Petitioner insisted on meeting their illegal demand of Rs. 10 Lakhs.

5. In June 2018 the Petitioner came to know that the Opposite Party had remarried one Seema Kumari. The Petitioner went to Rahua and confronted the Opposite Party No. 2. The Petitioner was abused and assaulted by the Opposite Party No. 2 and his associates. The Petitioner approached Mukhiya, Sarpanch, and other renowned persons of the village, Rahua to intervene in the matter. Upon their intervention, the Opposite Party provided a room for the Petitioner and since June 2018, the Petitioner has been staying in her matrimonial house at Rahua. However, the Petitioner was dependent on the grains and money received from her maternal side to survive at Rahua. The Opposite Party never treated her as a wife and failed to maintain her.

6. During examination-in-chief and cross-examination, it came to light that the Petitioner had been living at her father's place for 3-4 months but had not been living with his father for the last two months. Dukh Haran Yadav, who is the father of the opposite party, states that the Petitioner was living with him till four months ago, but has not been staying with him for the last couple of months, whereas applicant witness no. 1. Kanchan Kumari herself has admitted in cross examination that she has never gone to her in-laws' house. Opposite party witness no. 2 has said in his cross-examination that he is not ma