In order to obtain an order for maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C., the applicant must establish that she is the legally married wife of the non-applicant.

Gulab Chand Gupta, J.

1. The applicant, claiming herself to be the married wife of non-applicant, had initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate Class I, Manendragarh. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 18.1.85 granted her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 175/- per month. The non-applicant challenged the said order in revision before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sarguja who has been pleased to set aside the same on a finding that the marriage between the parties is not established by evidence on record. It is this order which is impugned in the present application.

2. It is beyond doubt that before the applicant could obtain an order for maintenance, she has to establish that she was the legally married wife of the non-applicant. In her application before the learned Magistrate she claimed that she was married to the non-applicant about 25 years back. The non-applicant denied the said allegation and submitted that be had his legally married wife who was staying with him and that the applicant had no relationship with him. The applicant in her sworn testimony submitted that Nikah was performed 20 years before and she stayed with the non-applicant for 20 years and gave birth to three children and died. In her cross-examination she stated that she had the documentary proof of her Nikah. The said document was not filed. Meen Hajuddin (PW 2) deposed that he had seen the applicant and non-applicant living as husband and wife since last about 20 years. In cross-examination he admitted that the non-applicant was living with another wife Akhtari Begum, and has children from her. He also admitted that the non-applicant and Akhtari Begum were living as husband and wife since last five-six years. He however did not have any knowledge about the Nikah of the applicant with non-applicant and denied having any paper witnessing the same. Witness Sirajuddin (PW 3) claims to have seen the applicant and non-applicant living as husband and wife since 1959. According to him, the non-applicant had taken Akhtari Begum as a second wife and was staying with him. He further deposes that about 5 years before, a caste Panchayat had fixed Rs. 50/- per month as maintenance for the applicant which the non-applicant had paid only for two months and stopped thereafter. He however, in his cross-examination, denied any personal knowledge of marriage between the parties. As regards Panchayat he stated that the decision was reduced to writing but he does not know where the said writing is. Rafiuddin (PW 4) also claims to have seen applicant and non-applicant living as husband and wife. He deposed that children were burn to the applicant from the non-applicant but they unfortunately died. According to him, non-applicant did not have any children and therefore he took second wife named Akhtari Begum. He also deposes that the Panchayat had fixed Maintenance for the non-applicant and the applicant has paid the same for sometime He however, denied that the decision of the Panchayat was reduced to writing. Gulam Gousa (PW 5) is the Kazi and claims to have got the parties married at Aurangabad (Bihar) on 11.7.03, He however was not able to produce any document as according to him, marriages in village are not recorded anywhere.

3. This is the total evidence adduced by the applicant. If applicant's evidence is to be believed, it would appear that some document about her marriage with the non-applicant exists. But Gulam Gousa (PW 5) has deposed that there is no such document. It is not understood as to how Gulam Gousa remembers the date of Nikah of the parties even when there is no document about it. Not even the applicant recollects the date of her marriage. Be that as it may. Since the applicant claims to have the document in her possession, It was her obligation to produce the same for perusal of the Court. There is nothing on record to explain this omission. Apparently therefore she has failed to produce the best evidence of