In a petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the burden of proving the validity of the marriage lies on the petitioner. Documentary evidence, such as birth certificates, insurance policies, and invitation cards, can be used to establish the existence of a valid marriage.

Malay Kumar Basu, J.

This revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th September, 2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kalyani, Nadia in Misc. Case No. 25/95 which arose out of a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. by Rakhi Mohanta praying for maintenance against Sri Animesh Mohanta stated to be her husband. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence led by the parties and the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for both sides came to the conclusion that the alleged marriage between the parties had been proved and the ingredients of section 125 Cr.P.C. had been satisfied and accordingly he allowed the petition awarding maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month payable by the husband Animesh Mohanta to the petitioner wife, Rakhi Mohanta. He also imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the petitioner wife to be paid by the husband.

2. Being aggrieved by this order the O.P., Animesh Mohanta, has preferred this present revisional application challenging the impugned order as erroneous, illegal, improper and liable to be set aside.

3. The case of the petitioner Animesh Mohanta is that the O.P. Rakhi Mohanta, was not legally married by him as alleged and prior to such alleged marriage he married Binita Mohanta according to Hindu rites in 1991 and has been residing with Binita who gave birth to a male child in 1996. According to him the alleged marriage having not been proved to be valid at all, the O.P. could not be entitled to get any maintenance from him as awarded by the learned Magistrate and on that score the impugned order being illegal is liable to be set aside.

Mr. Basu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner Sri Animesh Mohanta, has drawn my attention to documentary evidence in particular. According to him the Exts. A, B & C are very important documents showing that he married the woman named, Binita Mohanta in the year 1991. Ext. A is the birth certificate of the son born to them on 12th November, 1996. This birth certificate is a public document and there cannot be any scope for its being manufactured for the purpose of the case. It bears the seal and signature of the sanitary inspector of the English Bazar Municipality, Malda. Its genuineness also has not been put into questions in the cross-examination of the O.P.W. 1 who has produced this document and on the basis of whose testimony it has been admitted into evidence and marked Ext. A. In this birth certificate the name of the father of the child is given as Dr. Animesh Chandra Mohanta of Kaikhali Dighari Gopalnagar, under North 24-Parganas. This document have not been challenged, there cannot be any room for doubt that the said Animesh Chandra Mohanta, that is, the present petitioner is the father of this child was alleged in the written objection and also in the oral evidence of the O.P.W.1 and O.P.W.3. It is to be noted here that it is not the case of the O.P. alleged wife that the mother of the said child, Arghadip Mohanta, is any other person than the said Binita Mohanta. Secondly the Ext. B is another material piece of evidence to indicate that the petitioner Animesh married Binita and was residing as husband and wife with her. This is a Life Insurance Corporation Policy dated 15th February, 1992. In this policy the name of Smt. Binita Mohanta takes place as the wife of the policy holder Animesh Chandra Mohanta and has been mentioned as nominee in the proper column of this policy. The alleged marriage as per the allegation of the O.P., Rakhi Mohanta, took place in March, 1992 but this L.I.C. Policy is dated 15th February, 1992 and therefore it cannot be said that the name of Binita Mohanta was entered into the policy as nominee only for the purpose of this litigation in order to create an evidence against the claim of the said Rakhi Mohanta.

4. Mr. Das, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the O.P. has failed to explain away the presumptive value of this piece of documenta