IMPORTANT POINT
In maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., strict proof of marriage is not required; cohabitation can establish a presumption of marriage.

JUDGMENT :

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.

1. Instant revision application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 20.05.2022 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 352 of 2018 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge-II, Family Court, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been allowed with a direction to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2.

2. As per the case of applicant, she was married to this petitioner on 10.03.2013 in the temple of Bhadra Kali at Chatra. Initially, after marriage, there was normal conjugal relation between them, but thereafter, the relationship turned sour and due to the conduct of the Petitioner, she suffered miscarriage twice.

3. It is averred in the maintenance application that the petitioner is in the business of mobile repair in the city of Hazaribag and was also in the real estate business, from which he had monthly income of Rs.25,000/-. Lately he got employment in Government service, on category reserved for handicapped. After that, he was getting proposals for marriage from different quarters and had deserted the applicant and was not supporting her, consequently she was not in a position to maintain herself.

4. Four witnesses have been examined on behalf of both sides each, and the learned Court below recorded a finding that the petitioner was the wife for the purpose for claim of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. though not in strict legal sense under the Hindu Marriage Act, and ordered the maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month.

5. Being aggrieved by the order, instant revision application has been preferred on the ground that the applicant was not legally married wife of the petitioner. As per the case of the applicant, the said marriage was solemnized in a temple, but no certificate has been adduced into evidence on behalf of the applicant to show that the marriage was indeed performed.

6. On the contrary, the defence has adduced into evidence the certificate issued by the Management of the Committee of the said Temple which has been marked as ‘Z’ for identification, in which it has been stated that no such marriage was performed. Furthermore, the applicant had lodged Hazaribag (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 201 of 2022 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and other Sections. Final form has been submitted by recording a finding that the petitioner was not legally married wife of the complainant.

7. It is argued that even if it is assumed that the petitioner was in live-in-relationship with the applicant/opposite party no. 2, they cannot be treated as husband and wife, which is the basic ingredient for passing an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The language of Section is crystal clear wherein a legally married wife is entitled to maintenance. There is no evidence of valid marriage. The applicant was earlier married to one Pappu Kumar and in support of it photo copy of the application for marriage under Kanyadan scheme to one Pappu Kumar has been filed.

8. On the quantum of maintenance awarded, it is submitted that without any proof of income, maintenance amount has been saddled on the petitioner, on the ground that he was holding Diploma in Elementary Education and the said degree had prospect of getting job in future.

9. Learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2 has defended the impugned order. It is submitted that Exhibit F cannot be relied as that is not an evidence of marriage, it is only an application for marriage, but there is no other material to show that applicant was married to Pappu Kumar. It is further submitted that copy of certificate (Exihibit-2) issued by Block Development Officer will go to show that the applicant had not derived any benefit under the Kanyadan Yojana.

10. A strict proof of marriage in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is not required, particularly when the evidence is on record that the Applicant was living w