The standard of proof for marriage in a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 is not as strict as in a cruelty proceeding under Section 498-A. The findings of a 498-A proceeding about the validity of the marriage should not influence the maintenance order under Section 125.

A.B. Pal, J.

1. I have heard Mr. R. Datta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Somik Deb, learned Counsel for the respondent.

2. The judgment dated 5-10-2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Criminal Revision No. 28(4)/2004 stands impugned in the present revision petition.

3. By the said judgment of the learned Sessions Judge the order dated 24-8-2004 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (for short SDJM), Sabroom, South Tripura in C.R. Misc. 7 of 2003 whereby his own order dated 17-7-2001 granting interim maintenance of Rs. 1500/- in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Code') for the respondent-wife herein and her child was cancelled, has been set aside reviving thus the original interim order dated 17-7-2001 of the learned SDJM.

4. The material facts giving rise to the present controversy originates from a petition filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125 of the Code before the Court of SDJM which was registered as C.R. Misc. No. 6(A)/2001. In the said petition she claimed that she was married to the petitioner herein on 21-11-1997 as per Hindu rites and customs in the house of her father and thereafter they lived together in the house of the petitioner-husband. In due course a child was born from the wedlock, but the conjugal bliss did not last long as the respondent-wife herein was allegedly subjected to cruelty and harassment. On 4-6-2000 the petitioner and his relatives had driven her out after severely assaulting her, forcing her to take shelter in her parents house. As the petitioner-husband was negligent in taking care of her and the child by providing maintenance, she had to approach the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate with a prayer under Section 125 of the Code claiming Rs. 1500/- for herself and equal amount for her son. The opposite party petitioner herein resisted the claim denying the marriage but, at the same time taking a plea that as the respondent-wife had left his house wilfully and in his absence, she was not entitled to any maintenance. The said petition of maintenance was disposed of by the learned SDJM granting Rs. 900/- per month as maintenance for the respondent-wife and Rs. 600/- per month for her minor son after making following observations, which, being relevant, is quoted below :

The opposite party denied any marriage but inter alia he stated that the petitioner left his house voluntarily in his absence without any reason. I fail to understand if there is no relation between the petitioner and the opposite party then why the opposite party stated in his written objection that the petitioner left his house without any reason and why the opposite party also allowed the petitioner to stay in his house in what status. The opposite party at the same time did not utter a single word in his written objection regarding birth of male child by the petitioner after their marriage with the opposite party.

So considering the above I am in my opinion that there is prima facie case and sufficient reason to allow interim maintenance in favour of the petitioner.

5. The above order of maintenance passed on 17-7-2001 was not put under challenge by the petitioner herein in any higher forum. It is not on record that he made any application in the same Court for modification of the order. It may be noted here that the respondent-wife filed another petition under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') alleging cruelty perpetrated on her by the petitioner-husband herein and his relatives. The said offence was taken cognizance of after investigation and submission of charge-sheet and the case was finally heard by another criminal Court, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sabroom, South Tripura. The judgment in that case registered as G.R. 69/2000 was delivered on 22-11-2002, one year four months after the order of maintenance was passed by the learned SDJM. The said proceeding under Section 498