IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive evidence to prove the validity of a marriage and the fulfillment of statutory conditions for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:

1. The present revision has been preferred against an order dated 22.04.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly Sadar, Chinsurah in Criminal Motion 35 of 2017 thereby dismissing the prayer for maintenance of the petitioner and affirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Hooghly under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The petitioner’s case is that the opposite party no. 1 is the husband of the petitioner and works in the Indian Railways, and earns approx Rs. 15,000/- monthly apart from other allowances.

3. The petitioner married the opposite party no. 1 on 12.05.2001 according to Hindu rites and customs, and started residing in her matrimonial home.

4. The marriage was duly consummated and out of the said wedlock, the petitioner gave birth to a child on 16.10.2002, who was unfortunately a “still born” male child.

5. In due course of their matrimony, the petitioner gave birth to another child on 03.03.2005. Unfortunately, however, the child passed away just a day after i.e. on 04.03.2005.

6. The petitioner was mentally and physically heartbroken and was hospitalized for a considerable span of time, and subsequently shifted to her parental house for healing her mental anguish and agony.

7. However, the opposite party no.1 started expressing his disinterest towards the petitioner, and stated disassociating himself from the petitioner, and refused to accept her as his wife.

8. The opposite party no. 1 then refused to accept the petitioner at her matrimonial house, and deserted her citing odd reasons.

9. The petitioner then discovered that the opposite party No. 1 while deserting the petitioner, started residing with another lady namely Lalita Devi, and entered into a family tie with her, acting in gross violation and injustice in the span when she was residing at her parental house.

10. It is stated by the petitioner that she was earlier married to the elder brother of the opposite party no.1 herein, namely Ajay Sharma in the year 1995 and a son was born out of the said wedlock. However, in the year 1999, said Ajay Sharma passed away and subsequently upon the requests of the petitioner’s in laws and the opposite party no.1 herein, the petitioner entered into a matrimonial tie with the opposite party no.1 in the year, 2001.

11. As soon as the opposite party no. 1/husband realized that the second child too failed to see the world, and that the petitioner was suffering from physical breakdown due to the untimely loss of the child, he left her in midway, and instead chose to start his life afresh with another lady, leaving the petitioner in a pool of unending sorrows.

12. The petitioner, finding little alterative preferred/moved an application claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 2nd Court, Hooghly being MC4/2007.

13. The opposite party no.1, denied all material allegations, and denied the very factum of marriage with the petitioner. The Learned Court, then by an order dated 24.12.2012 dismissed the case, by holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

14. The petitioner preferred a Revision before the Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, Hooghly, Chinsurah, being Criminal Motion No. 28 of 2013.

15. By an order dated 04.03.2015, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly, upon scanning the records came to a conclusive finding that additional evidences ought to be considered, and the maintenance prayer cannot be brushed aside at a go. The Learned Judge held that the impugned order suffered from impropriety and incorrectness, and directed the Learned Trial Court to dispose of the entire case by considering the fresh documents.

16. The opposite party no.1/husband assailed the aforesaid order dated 04.03.2015 before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in CRR 1077 of 2015. The Hon’ble High Court by an order dated 20.08.2015 held tha