JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NANDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. J. Islam, learned Legal Aid counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Z. Alam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. The petitioner/wife has preferred an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of impugned judgment and order dated 28.05.2019 passed by the ld. Sessions Judge, Nalbari in Criminal Revision Case No. 32/2018.

3. The case is fixed for admission. However, with the consent of ld. counsel for both the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

4. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. being Case No. 162M/2017 against her husband i.e. opposite party No. 2 (herein after referred to as O.P. No. 2) before the ld. JMFC, Nalbari. The ld. Magistrate, Nalbari, after hearing both parties, passed judgment and order dated 19.05.2018 and awarded monthly allowance of Rs. 3,000/- to the petitioner. Thereafter, the O.P. No. 2 preferred a revision before the ld. Sessions Judge, Nalbari, challenging the judgment and order of the ld. Magistrate dated 19.05.2018 and after hearing both sides, ld. Sessions Judge, passed the judgment and order dated 28.05.2019, allowing the prayer of the O.P. No. 2 by setting aside the judgment and order of the ld. Magistrate dated 19.05.2018 in case No. 162M/2017. Hence this petition.

5. The case of the petitioner is that she got married to the O.P. No. 2 about 25 years back and lived together as husband and wife and out of their wedlock, a male child was born. It is also stated in the petition that her husband had an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law Ganga Swargiary and the O.P. No. 2 along with his sister-in-law had made a dowry demand towards her. As the petitioner was unable to fulfill their demand, they started to torture her both physically as well as mentally. It is also alleged that the O.P. No. 2 did not provide food to the petitioner and also neglected their son. The petitioner had to take care of her child by begging. It is further alleged that in the month of February, 1995, the O.P. No. 2 along with his sister-in-law physically assaulted the petitioner and drove her out from her matrimonial home. Finding no other alternative, she took shelter in the house of her parents. Subsequently she started to stay in a rented house at Nalbari.

6. Against the petition filed by the petitioner before the ld. Magistrate under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the O.P. No. 2 had filed a written statement, wherein he denied all the allegations made by the petitioner in her petition and he also denied any marriage with the petitioner as well as birth of a child out of their wedlock. It is also stated in the written statement that since 2011, he was serving as a State Government employee in the Fishery Department and thereafter, he got married to another woman. In the written statement, the O.P. No. 2 did not say anything that the petitioner got married to one Sarma Boro and out of their wedlock two children were born.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the ld. Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the DW-2 who is the witness of the O.P. No. 2, has admitted the marriage of the petitioner with the O.P. No. 2. He also disclosed that as per direction of the O.P. No. 2, he stated that he got married to the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that strict proof of marriage is not required for allowing maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the ld. Sessions Judge dated 28.05.2019 in Criminal Revision Case No. 32/2018 is liable to be set aside.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 categorically stated that no marriage was held between O.P. No. 2 and the petitioner. As the petitioner is not the legally married wife of the O.P. No. 2 and as suc