JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Shailendra Jit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 and Ms. Lily Sahay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

3. This criminal revision application has been filed against the order dated 15.05.2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag in M. Case No. 08/2009 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on an application filed by Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No.2-Geeta Devi and Rs.1,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No.3-Bharti Kumari as maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the application i.e. 27.01.2009.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is fit to be set-aside, inasmuch as, the order of maintenance was passed on the basis of conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and against the said order of conviction, an appeal was pending. But during the pendency of the present petition, the said appeal has been decided and the judgment of conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been set-aside by the appellate court as the marriage itself could not be proved. He submitted that once the marriage could not be proved in the criminal case, the impugned order, being based on the conviction in the criminal case, is also fit to be set-aside. Thus, it is proved beyond doubt that the petitioner is not the husband of the Opposite Party No.2 and therefore, the impugned order of maintenance treating the petitioner as husband of the Opposite Party No.2 is perverse and is fit to be set-aside.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Parties

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3, on the other hand, opposed the prayer and submitted that the impugned order was passed not only by considering the conviction of the petitioner in the criminal case for the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, but also considering the evidence of the applicant i.e. the Opposite Party No.2 and her cross-examination. He submitted that during cross-examination, it was put to the applicant that she was forcibly wedded to the petitioner in the temple under pressure of the police personnel from thana, which she denied. She was also cross-examined by putting a question that the Satpati was also not performed, which she again denied. The learned counsel submitted that the trend of cross-examination of the applicant itself indicates that the petitioner was questioning the marriage by cross-examination on the point that the marriage was performed by force and/or the rituals of the marriage were not completed.

6. The learned counsel for the private opposite parties further submitted that the evidence of the applicant/Opposite Party No.2 has been supported by the other witnesses produced by her.

7. He also submitted that it is not in dispute that the applicant was initially married to the elder brother of the petitioner in the year 1991 and when the elder brother expired, second marriage of the applicant was performed with the petitioner-her brother-in-law in the year 1999. Out of the first marriage of the applicant, one girl child was born and out of her second marriage with the petitioner, another girl child was born. He submitted that at the stage of passing order under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, only prima facie finding is required to be recorded regarding marriage and therefore, acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, where the marriage could not be proved, has no bearing in the present matter. He submitted that the only r