Living together for a reasonably long period of time as husband and wife is sufficient to fasten the liability on the husband if the wife is unable to maintain herself and the husband has sufficient means. The urgency-based remedy under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. should not be denied on technical grounds, and dependents unable to maintain themselves should not be denied maintenance.

Tarun Kumar Kaushal, J.

Present revision has been directed u/s 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (in short Act of 1984) against the order dated 18.1.2012 passed by Principal Judge,, Family Court, Rewa in MJC No. 101/2010 declining the maintenance u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. to the petitioner/wife for want of technical formality of marriage. According to petitioners, petitioner No. 1 is Sheela Bai Rajak, got married to the respondent Mutukdhari Rajak in the year 1987. On 12.8.1983 son-Rajesh, in the year 1995 daughter Suman and at last on 5.8.2000 petitioner No. 2 Shivam was born in the family. Following some quarrels and differences between them in the year 2007, petitioner/wife was forced to live separately, who was unable to maintain herself, whereas the respondent/husband being an employee in the electricity department and owner of agricultural land was having sufficient income.

2. Respondent/husband challenged the petition u/s 125, Cr.P.C. saying that petitioner/wife was earlier married to one Kashi Prasad prior to her marriage with him. Respondent denied parentage of two sons i.e. eldest and youngest also respectively.

3. Family Court observing that petitioner could not prove the legality and validity of marriage with the respondent. Hence the maintenance u/s 125, Cr.P.C. was denied in respect of wife/petitioner. However, Family Court has granted Rs. 1,000 per month maintenance to petitioner No. 2 to the minor son.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on Chanmuniya Vs. Chanmuniya Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Another, (2011) 1 SCC 141 submits that living together for a reasonably long period of time as husband and wife is sufficient to fasten the liability on husband if wife is unable to maintain herself and husband is having sufficient means. Merely on the basis of technicalities of marriage such urgent relief conceptualized for obtaining social justice cannot be denied.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent placing reliance on Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another, (1988) 1 SCC 530 submits that legality of marriage is also equally important.

6. Considering the aforesaid submissions, it is apparently clear that if for v/ant of technicalities spouse considers the marriage to be illegal then he or she has a right and occasion to seek remedy in civil laws where not only matrimonial rights will be decided, the matter of permanent alimony will be considered. Scheme u/s 125, Cr.P.C. is quite different and it is nothing but urgency based remedy available to the dependents. Meaning thereby, dependents those are unable to maintain cannot be denied the maintenance merely on the basis of technical grounds. No doubt Husband has a right to approach for the civil remedies. In present case, admittedly, parties have lived together for years together as husband and wife and also have been blessed with three children at least one child of their own, out of wedlock. Family Court has granted maintenance to minor son, hence, maintenance to wife cannot be denied. Now respondent shall pay Rs. 1000/- per month maintenance to petitioner/wife also from the date of the order made by Family Court.

Revision is allowed as indicated above.