The court affirmed that maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. can be granted based on a less stringent standard of proof for marriage, emphasizing social justice for women.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushik Goswami, J.

Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Parveen, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

2] By way of the instant two revision petitions i.e. Crl. Rev. P. No. 4/2012 and Crl. Rev. P. No. 138/2020, the petitioner is challenging the judgment & order dated 16.09.2011 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati in F.C.(Crl.) No.244/2009 under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) allowing the maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- (rupees three thousand) per month to the respondent and judgment & order dated 29.09.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-II, Guwahati in Misc. Case No.191/2018, whereby the maintenance allowance of the petitioner is enhanced from Rs. 3,000/- (rupees three thousand) per month to Rs. 8,000/- (rupees eight thousand) per month. Accordingly, both the criminal revision petitions are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.

3] The brief facts of the case is that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Family Court alleging inter alia that she was married to the petitioner on 29.02.2004 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Kamakhya temple and thereafter, she was physically and mentally tortured by the family members of the petitioner as well as by the petitioner and that later the petitioner refused to take her with him to his house and also demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from her father and later on when she had gone to the house of the petitioner, she was driven out by the family members of the petitioner. Accordingly, she prayed for an amount of Rs. 40,000/- per month as maintenance from the petitioner. Pursuant to the said petition, the petitioner filed objection and thereafter, both parties adduced evidence. The family Court after concluding the hearing was pleased to hold that the petitioner and the respondent are legally married and that the petitioner had neglected to maintain her and accordingly, ordered payment of Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application for enhancement of the maintenance allowance, which the Family Court after hearing the parties was pleased to enhance the maintenance allowance from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month. Against the aforesaid two orders, the present criminal revision petitions have been filed.

4] Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a Christian, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, who is a Hindu is not valid and therefore, the order of the Family Court directing maintenance allowance is totally erroneous in law. She further submits that the respondent has also filed a complaint case alleging bigamy before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro) being C.R. Case No. 1276/2013, wherein the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate by judgment & order dated 29.01.2021 having held that the allegation of bigamy is not proved, was pleased to dismiss the complaint. She further places reliance upon paragraph 23 of the said judgment which reads as hereunder:

“23) In view of the above discussion I find that the complainant has failed to prove the ceremonies of marriage between her and the accused. In order to prove the charge u/s 494 the complainant has to prove not only the second marriage but also that the first marriage was a valid one with performance of all its ceremonies. In the instant case only evidence of first marriage adduced by the complainant is the evidence of accused before the family court in proceedings for annulment of marriage as Ext. 12 wherein he stated that he is a married man with three children. Now the question to be determined is whether the said evidence of accused admitting the 1 marriage in the proceeding before family court can be considered as proof