Strict proofs of marriage are not required for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., and the court may consider indirect evidence to establish the marriage. The court also considers the neglect of maintenance and the financial capability of the parties in determining the maintenance allowance.

Rajendra Mahajan, J.

1. The applicant has preferred this criminal revision being aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2014 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Chhindwara in M.Cr.C. No. 434/14, the parties being Smt. Salma @ Rukhsana v. Seikh Raheem Baqsh, whereby the learned Judge has directed the applicant to pay the respondent maintenance allowance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., @ Rs.5,000/- per month from December 2014 onwards.

2. The relevant and necessary facts for the adjudication of this revision are as under:-

2.1. The respondent had filed proceedings for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C on 23.08.2013. She has averred therein that the applicant had first entraped her into a web of love giving her assurances that he is unmarried. Thereafter, he gave her the proposal of marriage. Being illiterate and gullible, she agreed to marry him. On 06.09.1996, he got a deed executed by her before a notary called S.K. Nema, at Amarwada, whereby she has adopted Muslim religion in place of Hindu religion and kept her name Rukhsana Bi in place of Sunita. On 10.01.1997, Qazi Ishahaq of village Salva of district Sarguja performed her marriage with him as per wedding customs and rites prevailing in Muslim religion and in his caste. Her marriage with him was witnessed by Mohd. Nazir Qazi being her wakil and another person. At the time of marriage Rs. 10,101/- was fixed as Mehar. Thereafter, she lived with him as his wife in villages namely Singodi and Loniya. While leading a marital life with him, she came to know that he is already married and that he has had children with his first wife, who are living separately from him in village Harai. Thus, he married her by practising deception on her. Some time after her marriage, he had developed illicit relationship with some women. Whenever she objected to him for having illicit relations, he committed marpeet with her. Since she married him by changing her religion and name, she had no option but to tolerate his illicit relationship. Never the-less she convened a village Panchayat wherein the members of Panchayat advised him not to do so. He assured them that he would behave properly with her in future. However, he backed out the assurance. Later, he started neglecting to maintain her.

2.2. It is further case of the respondent that she has no source of income and that she is totally illiterate. She had done manual labour to earn her livelihood, but now she is unable to do so because of her ill health. The applicant is a driver in the Forest Department of Govt. of M.P.. His salary is Rs. 25,000/- per month. In addition to that, he owns 6 to 7 Auto Rikshaws which he has hired out and wherefrom he earns Rs. 8,400/- per month as rental. He is also the owner of a pakka house situated in village Singodi. He has also given the house on rent at Rs. 25,000/- per month. He also have 5 acres of agriculture land in village Baikunthpur district Sarguja. His agriculture income is Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, he is economically capable of providing her maintenance. She needs Rs. 15,000/- per month for her maintenance. Therefore, the applicant be directed to give her maintenance @ Rs.15000/-per month.

2.3. In written reply, the applicant has admitted that he had married Shahida Bi in 1982 and that he holds the post of driver in the Forest Department of the Government of M.P. However, he has denied all the remaining allegations levelled by the respondent. He has taken the stand that the respondent got married to one Ramdas Vishwakarma, resident of Narsinghpur town, as per Hindu religion and customs. She is still his legal wife. He never married her nor did he ever live with her as her husband. Under the circumstances, she is not entitled to get maintenance from him and her maintenance application be dismissed.

2.4 In the trial Court, the respondent got examined herself as AW-1 and daughter of her sister Jyoti (AW-2) in support of her claims. In oppugnation, the applicant got examined himse