Strict proof of marriage is not necessary in proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC for the purpose of granting maintenance.

JUDGMENT :

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

2. Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.1-State.

3. Heard Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3.

4. The petitioner has preferred the present criminal revision application against the order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sahibganj in Maintenance Case No. 330 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the maintenance petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance allowance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No.2-wife and Rs.500/- per month to the Opposite Party No.3-son (total Rs.2,500/- per month) with effect from the date of filing the case i.e. from 04.08.2009 by 10th day of next succeeding month and he has been further directed to pay the arrears of the maintenance allowance within 60 days from the date of the order, failing which Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 were held entitled to take the same through the process of law.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order submitted that the solitary point which is involved in the case is that the Opposite Party No.2 is not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. He further submitted that a specific plea was raised before the learned court below that the first marriage of the Opposite Party No.2 was solemnized in Village - Belbathan, but her husband deserted her and thereafter, she started living at her parents’ house and she got second marriage in Village- Hatmari. He submitted that as the petitioner has never solemnized marriage with the Opposite Party No.2, the impugned order granting maintenance allowance to the Opposite Party No.2 and her minor son amounting to Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He also submitted that the petitioner is continuously making payment of the maintenance allowance to the private Opposite Parties as per the order passed by the learned court below.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Parties

6. The learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 opposed the prayer and submitted that in a case of maintenance, the court has to prima-facie see whether the applicant is the wife of the opposite party or not. He further submitted that one certified copy of the judgment bearing Case No. 150/2005 was also filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 (wife) before the learned court below wherein the petitioner has been convicted under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. He also submitted that there is enough material on record to come to a conclusion that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the Opposite Party No.2 and accordingly, the impugned order does not call for any interference.

7. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1-State adopted the submissions advanced on behalf the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 and submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or perversity and accordingly, no interference is called for under revisional jurisdiction.

Findings of this Court

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that on 04.08.2009, the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in the court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sahibganj stating inter alia that the Opposite Party No.2 is the legally married wife of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized in the month of March, 2001 according to Santhal Customary Law and tribal customs, rites and at her house as per custom. After the marriage, she went with the petitioner to his house, but at her sasural, her in-laws assaulted her demanding more dowry from her father and she was not giv