JUDGMENT :

[Deepak Roshan, J.]

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant revision application is directed against the order dated 20.06.2020, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, whereby the Original Maintenance Case No. 159 of 2010, preferred by the petitioner for award of her maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. has been dismissed on the ground that petitioner has failed to prove the factum of marriage with the opposite party.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief is that the petitioner was married with opposite party on 08.06.2010 and were living as husband and wife. The petitioner and opposite party were leading conjugal life, but the attitude of the opposite party and his family members changed and they started torturing the petitioner and started demanding dowry. The opposite party, his parents, brother-in-law and sister-in-law started demanding dowry by saying unless the petitioner would bring rupees three lakhs and articles she will not be allowed to remain in her matrimonial home. The petitioner and her parents were unable to fulfill their demand. On 01.09.2010, the opposite party assaulted the petitioner and drove her out of the matrimonial home. The mother, father and brother of the petitioner tried to settle the matter but the opposite party was firm on his demand. The petitioner is facing great hardship to maintain herself. Family members of opposite party are rich and his father Saukat Khan is working in police department and the opposite party himself is running Electronics shop near Kanke and earning about rupees fifteen thousand per month.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that that the petitioner was married with opposite party on 08.06.2010 and both of them were living as husband and wife. After sometime the opposite party and his family members started demanding dowry from the petitioner and on non-fulfillment of the demand she was driven out of her matrimonial home. Since then she is living with her parents and facing great hardships as she is unable to maintain herself and that the opposite party is bound to maintain her. Learned Counsel relied on Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha reported in (2011) 1 SCC 141 where Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that a man who lived with a woman for a long time and even though they may not have undergone legal necessities of a valid marriage, should be made liable to pay the woman maintenance if he deserts her and that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term “wife” under Section 125 Cr. P.C. The relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below:

“24. Thus, in those cases where a man, who lived with a woman for a long time and even though they may not have undergone legal necessities of a valid marriage, should be made liable to pay the woman maintenance if he deserts her. The man should not be allowed to benefit from the legal loopholes by enjoying the advantages of a de facto marriage without undertaking the duties and obligations. Any other interpretation would lead the woman to vagrancy and destitution, which the provision of maintenance in Section 125 is meant to prevent.

25. The Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, headed by Dr. Justice V.S. Malimath, in its Report of 2003 opined that evidence regarding a man and woman living together for a reasonably ling period should be sufficient to draw the presumption that the marriage was performed according to the customary rites of the parties. Thus, it recommended that the word “wife” in Section 125 Cr. P.C. should be amended to include a woman who was living with the man like his wife for a reasonably long period.

42. We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term “wife” to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under Section 12