In maintenance proceedings under Section 125, proof of cohabitation suffices to establish entitlement, not strict proof of marriage, reaffirming the provision's purpose of social justice.

Judgment :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This RPFAM by the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Keonjhar in Criminal Petition No.32 of 2014 granting maintenance to each of the Opposite Parties @ Rs.7,500/- per month as maintenance with further direction to pay the arrear maintenance with effect from the date of filing of the application on 24.03.2014 within three months with further stipulation for realization of the amount through process of the Court, if the same is not paid by the Petitioner.

2. The facts in precise are that the Opposite Party No.1 claiming her to be the legally married wife of the Petitioner has filed a proceeding before the learned Judge Family Court, Keonjhar for grant of maintenance to her and her daughter, but the Petitioner on being noticed took a stand that the Opposite Party No.1 is not his legally wedded wife as no marriage was performed so also Opposite Party No.2 is not his daughter. The petition for maintenance by the Opposite Parties came to be registered as Criminal Petition No.32 of 2014 and the learned trial Court after inviting and receipt of objection from the present Petitioner proceeded with the proceeding and took evidence from both the sides. Accordingly the present Opposite Party No.1 examined four witnesses on her behalf as against the oral evidence of four witnesses by the present Petitioner, but no documentary evidence was adduced by the present Petitioner, whereas four documents were admitted in evidence for Opposite Parties. The learned trial Court, however, after considering the rival submissions upon taking into consideration the evidence on record passed the impugned order directing the Petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.7,500/- to each of the Opposite Party, all total Rs.15,000/- per month w.e.f. 24.03.2014. Being aggrieved with such order, the Petitioner has preferred this revision.

3. In the course of hearing Mr. Himansu Sekhar Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset submits that although the marriage of the Petitioner with Opposite Party No.1 is disputed from the very inception of the proceeding, but the learned trial Court ignoring such fact and on erroneous appreciation of evidence passed the impugned order notwithstanding to the fact that the documents as admitted in evidence for OPs were objected to by the Petitioner and same were marked with objection and, therefore, when the marriage of the Petitioner with Opposite Party No.1 has not been established, the direction for grant of maintenance to Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 is unsustainable in the eye of law and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, Mr. Mohanty prays to issue notice to Opposite Parties. Further, Mr. Mohanty also prays to allow the revision petition.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner upon perusal of the record, it appears to the Court that the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment at Paragrah-9 has observed as under:-

“9. On an analysis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the Petitioners and the O.P. it is seen that the petitioners have filed this proceeding in the year 2014 claiming maintenance. Since the hearing of said case was not commenced, the petitioners have filed one I.A. No.1/2015 against the O.P. after more than one year of filing of this case which was dismissed by this Court on 04.12.2015. Against the said dismissal order the petitioners preferred the revision before the Hon’ble Court vide RPFAM No.96/2016 and after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties the Hon’ble Court after taking into consideration the documents relied on by the p