In maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., strict proof of marriage is not necessary, but reasonable evidence of divorce from a previous spouse is required to establish marital status.

JUDGMENT :

Pranjal Das, J.

Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. T. Begum, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The petitioner Tufazzul Hussain is invoking the revisional jurisdiction under section 438/442 of BNSS 2023, aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2025, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta, in F.C. (Crl.) Case No. 356/2020, directing him to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3000/- to the respondent, Fulmala Khatun, w.e.f 17.11.2021.

3. Before going further, the facts giving rise to the present proceeding may be noticed. The respondent as 1st party filed the petition before the learned Family Court, Barpeta under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance and claiming to be the wife of the petitioner/2nd party. Her contention was that the petitioner/2nd party married her under Islamic Law and subsequently, she also stayed with him in his house. However, the petitioner and his other wife tortured her and pushed her out of that house. The 1st party also made allegations of illegal demand for money made by the petitioner, stated to be her husband.

4. It was contended by the respondent/1st party that she was unable to maintain herself and therefore, she should be granted maintenance. The petitioner/2nd party contended that the respondent was not his wife and that he came to know her while she was working as an advocate clerk in Barpeta court, where he was working in a computer printing shop. He denied that he was financially well off as was contended by the 1st party.

5. During the proceeding, the respondent adduced evidence of herself as PW-1 and another person as PW-2. The petitioner/2nd party adduced evidence of only himself.

6. Upon considering the evidence, the learned Family Court, Barpeta was pleased to grant maintenance to the respondent as already mentioned above.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner supporting his pleadings in the revision petition submits that the order is erroneous as the learned Family Court, Barpeta wrongly held that the respondent was the wife of the petitioner.

8. It is contended that there was clear material that the respondent was married to other person and therefore, the learned Court below ought not to have accepted her evidence regarding her marriage to the petitioner in the absence of other evidence regarding her previous marriage.

9. It is contended that the petitioner has not been able to prove before the learned Court below about her marriage to the petitioner and has not been able to prove sufficiently that she was legally married wife of the petitioner. On the basis of such submissions and contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks interference with the impugned judgment and order.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Family Court, Barpeta, has rightly accepted the evidence of the 1st party about her marriage to the petitioner and that during the proceeding, the respondent 1st party has been able to prove her marriage to the 2nd party and also her inability to maintain herself and hence, there is no infirmity in the order of maintenance.

11. I have perused the revision petition, the impugned judgment and order, the evidence laid before the learned Family Court below during the proceeding and other relevant materials.

12. I find that the primary contention of the petitioner side is questioning the existence of the marriage between the parties and denying the status of the respondent as the wife of the petitioner.

13. Befor