D.K. Sinha, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. Both the criminal revisions have arisen out of common order passed in M.P. Case No. 15 of 2002, by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, on 8.2.2006 which is impugned, whereby and whereunder, learned Principal Judge by allowing a proceeding under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure directed the husband Tulsi Mahto to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month to Gunjari Devi from the date of the impugned order as her maintenance allowance, with default stipulation.

3. Petitioner Gunjari Devi of Cr. Revision No. 405 of 2006 was aggrieved of the order impugned on the ground that amount awarded to her by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro was inadequate as against the demand of Rs. 3,000/- per month and hence she preferred criminal revision.

4. On the other hand, petitioner Tulsi Mahto of Cr. Revision No. 173 of 2006 was aggrieved of the order impugned on the ground that Gunjari Devi was an imposter and was never his married wife.

5. Mr. Tripurari Prnsail, learned Counsel submitted for and on behalf of Tulsi Mahto that a compliant case was instituted by Gunjari Devi against Tulsi Mahto and others in the year 1978 for the offence under Sections 498A and 494 I.P.C. vide Case No. 20C/78 but all the thirteen accused persons were acquitted as no valid marriage was proved between Tulsi Mahto and Gunjari Devi in view of her admission that she was aged about 7-8 years at the relevant time of marriage and hence it was held that she was not under permissible age according to Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to enter into contract of marriage and hence it was void.

6. Learned Counsel for Gunjari Devi submitted that she was married to Tulsi Mahto some 30-32 years ago in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs and thereafter she went to her matrimonial home where she lived with Tulsi Mahto for about six years and a son was born to them. After birth of the said son, it was alleged that Tulsi Mahto solemnized his second marriage with one Sanichariya Devi, daughter of one Dayal Mahto and thereafter her misery started. At the instance of his second wife Sanichariya Devi, she was driven out from her matrimonial home. She was unable to maintain herself as her husband Tulsi Mahto voluntarily neglected and refused to maintain her. It was further submitted that Tulsi Mahto was in regular employment in Dhori colliery and was drawing a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month besides bonus to the extent of Rs. 4,000/- quarterly and Rs. 5,000/- annually. As it was difficult to maintain herself as well as her son at Rs. 1,000/- per month being the maintenance amount awarded by the impugned order hence the criminal revision. A number of documents such as ration card, school leaving certificate, caste certificate, and income certificate of her son Lalit Kishor Mahto have been filed from which would indicate that father of her son Lalit Kishor Mahto is none other than Tulsi Mahto. Gunjari Devi filed several other documents such as voter list, voter identity card and other documents in which she has been figured as the wife of Tulsi Mahto. Finally the learned Counsel pointed out that by executing panchnama, Tulsi Mahto had undertaken to maintain his wife Gunjari Devi as well as his son and to part share in his property as well as the final payment drawn from the C.C.L. (Annexure-2). She prayed for the enhancement of the maintenance amount.

7. Mr. Tripurari Prasad, learned Counsel, challenged the impugned order on the ground that without deciding the factum of his alleged marriage with Gunjnri Devi the order impugned, by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro is not maintainable. Proof of marriage between the parties in case of claim by either of the spouse is sine qua non for awarding an order of maintenance in a proceeding under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure and reliance has been placed upon the decisions of Patna High Court in the case of Mohd. Belal v. Sogra Khatoon, reported in 1990-East CrC 30