JUDGMENT :

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.01.2016 passed in Maintenance Case No. 36 of 2012 by which he has been directed to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to the opposite party no. 1 and Rs. 1000/-per month to the opposite party no. 2 as maintenance allowance, besides Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost.

2. The only plea urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the opposite party no. 1 is not his legally married wife and the opposite party no. 2 is not his daughter.

3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to prove marriage between the parties opposite party no. 1 was required to lead evidence establishing that rituals of marriage were performed. However, on the evidences led by her though the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has found that rituals of marriage were not performed still she and her daughter are held entitled for monthly maintenance.

4. In the proceeding of Maintenance Case No. 36 of 2012, the petitioner has examined four witnesses and the opposite party no. 1, who was the applicant no. 1 in the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has examined five witnesses. P.W. 1 is father of Ghurni Orain, the applicant no. 1. He has spoken about relationship between his daughter and the present petitioner, pregnancy of his daughter, panchayati and undertaking of the petitioner to accept his daughter as his wife. In paragraph no. 12 of his cross-examination, he has reiterated that with the intervention of the villagers marriage between his daughter and the petitioner was performed. The opposite party no. 1 has examined herself as P.W.2. She has stated about sexual relationship and her marriage with the petitioner. She has further stated that on 23.09.2012 she and her minor daughter were thrown out from house by the petitioner and he was not maintaining them. Before marriage about three years ago she was first raped by him and when a panchayati was convened he brought her to his house at which address her Aadhar Card was prepared. P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 have also supported her case, however, P.W. 4 has stated that all the rituals of the marriage were not performed.

5. Several documents have also been filed by the opposite party no. 1 to establish that she was married to the petitioner.

6. The witnesses examined by the petitioner have stated that the petitioner was married to another lady, namely, Seema Orain and that he has no relationship with the opposite party no. 1. They have denied that any panchayti was convened and that the petitioner has ever demanded dowry.

7. On the basis of the materials laid before him, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has held as under:

“7. I have considered that the legislation under section 125 Cr.P.C is a beneficial legislation and the object of the legislature is to be achieved by liberally construing the evidence in Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai, reiterating the legal position, it was held : -

“Section 125 Cr.P.C is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this court in captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal Vs. Veena Kaushal falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Vs. State of Gujarat.”

8. I am of opinion that even if the rituals of the marriage of the petitioner with the O.P. was not made, the petitioner was accepted by the O.P. as his wife and in criminal case also the I.O. has accepted that the relationship of the petitioner with the O.P. as husband and wife. It may be inferred that the petitioner was livi