Strict proof of marriage is not necessary for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the presumption of cohabitation as husband and wife is strong.

ORDER :

Maintenance Case No.162 of 2009 was instituted on the application of Sanjhali Kisku filed under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance of Rs.9000/- per month from Churka Marandi, the opposite party (the petitioner herein).

2. In the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was filed on 26.08.2008, Sanjhali Kisku (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) stated that she was married to Churka Marandi about 15 years ago according to Santhal custom and started living together. The opposite party who was headmaster at Primary School, Naudiha getting Rs. 18000/- per month in salary and possessed other agricultural and landed properties suddenly started maarpit with her since last one year. He would harass, humiliate and torture her in various ways. On 27.07.2008 he came home intoxicated and thrown her out from house. At her instance a Panchayati was convened but her husband remained adamant not to permit her to live in the matrimonial house. The opposite party denied the allegations of the applicant and emphatically asserted that the applicant was a stranger. She was staying with his younger brother as his concubine and at the instance of his brother who wanted to grab his properties the applicant filed a false and fabricated case against him. The opposite party has further stated that his marriage was solemnized with Pakku Baski in the year 1968, she died on 01.11.2007 and after the death of his first wife he solemnized marriage with Sanjhali Soren with whom he has two children.

3. In the proceeding of Maintenance Case No.162 of 2009 both parties have examined themselves besides other witnesses and they have also laid in evidence several documents in support of their stand.

4. Mr. Anurag Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without proof of marriage between Sanjhali Kisku and Churka Marandi and, that too, when there was evidence of conclusive nature that Churka Marandi was married to Pakku Baski and after her death to Sanjhali Soren, award of maintenance to the applicant is patently erroneous.

5. The opposite party has denied marriage with the applicant. Jisu Marandi who was examined by the applicant as a witness has deposed in the Court that Sanjhali Kishi is the legally married wife of Churka Marandi. The opposite party would set-up a plea that Jisu Marandi had greedy eyes on his properties and his evidence was motivated. But, in my opinion, what has prompted the learned Family Court Judge to accept the claim of the applicant for maintenance was other overwhelming evidences laid during the trial - evidence of Jisu Marandi is just another piece of evidence. Jisu Marandi has deposed in the Court that the first wife of Churka Marandi died, Churka Marandi was headmaster at Naudiha Middle School and he was earning Rs.50000/- per month. The aforesaid facts stated by Jisu Marandi were admitted by the opposite party. In the cross-examination this witness has stood to his grounds and affirmed that name of wife of the opposite party is Sanjhali Kisku. He has further stated that with Pakku Baski the opposite party had one son and three daughters but unfortunately they all have passed away. These facts were also not denied by the opposite party and therefore there is no reason to think that other part of his evidence is tainted with motive. During the trial, the opposite party has laid evidence to the effect that two children, one son and one daughter, were born from his marriage with Sanjhali Soren. The witnesses examined by the opposite party have stated that after the death of his first wife the opposite party was married to Sanjhali Soren, and the applicant has laid evidence in denial.

6. At the outset, I may indicate that the proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, primarily civil in nature, are summary proceedings and unlike criminal proceedings strict rules of evidence are not applied by the court in a summary proceeding. The