Validity of marriage in section 125 proceedings is based on evidence, and maintenance should enable the wife to live with dignity.

JUDGMENT :

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.

1. Neelam Devi and Gaurav Kumar, her minor son, filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month each for them. On their application, Maintenance Case No. 84 of 2012 was instituted and the parties laid oral and documentary evidences in support of their stand. By order dated 01.10.2016, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda has awarded maintenance of Rs. 3000/- each per month for both the applicants.

2. The husband has assailed legality of the order dated 01.10.2016 primarily on the ground that his wife was living in adultery and he is not biological father of the applicant no. 2.

3. Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been enacted as a measure of social justice to protect the married women, minor children and old parents. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution and it provides a speedy remedy to the deserted wife and minor children. In Vimla (K) vs. Veeraswamy (K), (1991) 2 SCC 375 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that section 125 Cr.P.C. is meant to achieve a social purpose.

4. In the judgment in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another, (1999) 7 SCC 675 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed, thus:

“9. It is to be remembered that the order passed in an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties and the said section is enacted with a view to provide a summary remedy for providing maintenance to a wife, children and parents.......”

5. The applicant no. 1 has stated in her application under section 125 Cr.P.C. that her marriage was solemnized with Jyotish Mandal according to Hindu custom and from the wedlock a son who was named Gaurav Kumar was born. After birth of her son her husband and his family members started demanding additional dowry of 2 bhar gold, motorcycle and cash of Rs. 1,11,000/- and when she expressed poor financial condition of her father they would inflict various acts of torture upon her. Her husband gave a false information to her father that she was not well and when her father came to visit her husband and his family members started demanding dowry from him. They assaulted her father who was saved by the neighbours. She also suffered injuries at the hands of her husband and the other family members and both of them were admitted at Sadar Hospital, Godda. She filed a complaint with the police on 13.05.2011 and on the basis of her farebeyan Meharma P.S. Case No. 78 of 2011 was lodged under sections 341, 342, 323, 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibitions Act. The husband has however denied the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment to the applicant no. 1. He has alleged that father of the applicant no. 1 was Anuj Mandal and this fact was admitted by his wife before the Panches. He has produced a copy of Panchnama which was marked as Ext.K. The applicants have examined 3 witnesses in support of their claim for maintenance from Jyotish Mandal. The applicant no. 1 has examined herself as PW-1 and her mother and father were PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. They have stated about marriage of the applicant no. 1 with Jyotish Mandal and birth of Gaurav Kumar from their wedlock. It has come on record that Gaurav Kumar was studying at J.P. Mission School, Godda and PW-3 has stated that on his study the applicant no. 1 was spending about Rs. 10,000/-.

6. Besides himself the husband has examined 4 witnesses to establish that his wife was not ready to live with him; she was living in adultery and she had adulterous relationship with Anuj Mandal with whom she gave birth to a son. OPW-1 is the person who was present in the Panchayati but in his cross-examination she has stated that she was not aware of the dispute for which Panchayati was convened. She has admitted that the applicant no. 1 was living at her parental home since last 5 years and her husband was