In summary proceedings under Section 125 of Cr. P. C., the validity of marriage is determined based on the evidence brought on record, and strict proof of marriage is not required.

By way of this writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the relief for issu ing direction quashing the impugned orders dated 26-6-2001 and 28-6-2002, contained in Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ petition, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli and Sessions Judge, Chamoli respectively.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner-Smt. Kamla Devi moved an application against respondent no. 2- Sheri Lal for grant of maintenance un der Section 125 of Cr. P. C. alleging therein that she became widow at the age of 17 years and at the time of death of her husband a fetus of three months was in her womb and after 6-7 months a daughter was born. The petitioner fur ther alleged in the application that her father married her with one Sheri Lal in the year 1989 and at that time Sheri Lal was unemployed and subsequently he did his B. Ed, with the help of her father. In the year 1995 she conceived from Sheri Lal and subsequently she gave birth to a daughter. As Sheri Lal became a teacher in a primary school therefore his attitude was changed towards the petitioner. Respondent no. 2 - Sheri Lal removed the newly infant baby and kept the baby at some unknown place, there after respondent no. 2 took the peti tioner to Narayan Bagar and kept her in a room there. When the petitioner asked Sheri Lal about her baby, then he threat ened her with dire consequences and pushed her also from his house. Since then respondent no. 2 has not been maintaining her. It is further alleged that on 13th April, 1997 respondent no. 2 married with one Usha. The petitioner has thus claimed a sum of Rs. 1000/-per month as maintenance.

3. The application filed by the pe titioner was contested by respondent no. 2 and he pleaded in his objection that he was never married with petitioner-Kamla Devi. He has further pleaded that he and Kamla Devi never lived as hus band and. wife. He has also pleaded that he gets the salary of Rs. 2800/- after de duction. He has admitted his marriage with Usha. He has further stated that Kamla Devi is an employee of Aanganwari and is able to maintain her self. He has thus prayed that applica tion is liable to be rejected.

4. The learned Chief Judicial Mag istrate, Chamoli after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the par ties was pleased to dismiss the applica tion filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. vide judgment and order dated 26-6-2001. The petitioner pre ferred the revision against the aforesaid judgment and order and the learned Ses sions Judge, Chamoii also dismissed the revision vide judgment and order dated 28-6-2002.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the afore said impugned judgments and orders, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition before this Court.

6. Heard Sri R. P Nautiyal, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri S. S. Adhikari, learned A. G. A. for respondent no. 1, Sri N. S. Negi, learned counsel for respond ent no. 2 and perused the record.

7. Both the courts below have come to the conclusion that marriage between Kamla Devi and Sheri Lal is not proved hence Kamla Devi is not entitled to get the maintenance allowance from Sheri Lal.

8. It reveals to me that both the courts below have ignored the statement of Jagmohan Singh, Probation Officer, which has been produced by the respondent-Sheri Lal before the court be low as DW-3. This witness has specifi cally stated in his deposition that Kamla Devi had been getting the widow pension but after the enquiry conducted by Tehsildar Tharali it revealed that Kamla Devi had been residing with Sheri Lal since the year 1989 as his wife, hence the pension which was provided to Kamla Devi being widow was stopped with effect from financial year 2000-01. It is also worthy to mention here that one Rajia Bhatt, who was posted as A. N. M. in Primary Health Centre, Tharali, has also been produced as PW- 2 by the petitioner before the court be low and she has stated in her depos

Click Here to Read the rest of this document