1. This revision is directed against the order dated 2.9.2010 passed in Case No. F.C. (Crl.) 437 of 2007, by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, directing the present petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,000 per month as maintenance allowance to the apposite party herein, who had filed an application, under section 125, Cr.PC seeking maintenance from the present petitioner, on the ground that she is legally wedded wife of the present petitioner. Aggrieved by the direction so given, the petitioner, namely, Sri Upendra Sarma, has filed this revision.

2. Heard Ms. M. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.R. Sarma, learned counsel for the opposite party.

3. While considering the present revision it needs to be noted that the evidence of the 1st party, i.e., the opposite party herein who had instituted the maintenance proceeding reads as under :

"The opposite party had a love affair with me and he used to visit my house frequently and ultimately he married me by executing a registered deed of agreement of marriage on 8.5.2003 in the office of Sub-Registrar. He also socially married me at Bhagvat Mandir, Mangaldoi by putting vermilion on my forehead. The opposite party took me along with him and we lived together as husband and wife for 2 days. Exhibit (1) is the marriage agreement dated 8.5.2003 (proved in original).

The opposite party also made a written declaration on 24.3.2003 that he would marry the 1st party, and if he breaks his assurance he would pay Rupees Five Lakhs vide Exhibit (2). After staying together for 2 days the opposite party deserted me without any reason and there was no response form the opposite party since then."

4. From a careful reading of the above evidence, what transpires is that, according to the opposite party herein, her marriage, with the present petitioner, was solemnized by him by putting, vermillion on her forehead at Bhagvat Mandir, Mangaldoi. It is her case that the present petitioner married her by executing a registered deed of agreement, on 8.5.2003, at the Sub-Registrar's office, and also promised to marry her formally, at Kamakhya Temple, but he did not turn up.

5. Though they lived together for two days, the fact of the matter remains that in the face of the clear evidence that no valid marriage was solemnized between the parties concerned, the learned judge, Family Court, fell in error in granting compensation to the opposite party herein.

6. Witness No. 2 for the 1st party has deposed that the 2nd party had put vermilion on the forehead of the 1st party of the Bhagvat Mandir, Mangaldoi, declaring that she is his wife and, thereafter, undertook to marry her formally, at Kamakhya Temple, after one month, but as he did not turn up, the 2nd party was, again, called by the local people and, then, he executed a declaration that he would marry the 1st party and if he breaks his assurance, he would pay rupees five lakhs, Ext.1 being that document, which was registered. The evidence, so given by PW2, is a clear indication of the fact that no legal or valid marriage had been solemnized by the parties concerned and the parties were aware and conscious of this fact and that is why, the present petitioner is said to have given an undertaking to formally marry the opposite party herein at the Kamakhya Temple. To the same effect is the evidence given by PW3.

7. It may also be noted that even the supporting evidence which has come on record, clearly shows that none of the essentials of the Hindu Marriage was observed, in the present case by the parties concerned. Mere putting of vermilion did not, admittedly, complete the solemnization of a Hindu Marriage, when it was not the case of the 1st party (i.e., opposite party herein) that there is any rite or custom prevailing in their community, which formalizes marriage by putting of vermilion by the bridegroom on the bride. Far from this, her evidence and the evidence of her witnesses make it clear that mere putting of vermilion does not cr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document