The burden of proof lies with the party making a claim, and continuous cohabitation may raise a presumption of marriage. Electoral rolls alone are not sufficient to prove marriage, and maintenance can be granted even if a previous marriage was concealed.

JUDGMENT :

1. That, vide order dated 14-2-2012 the JMFC, Hoshangabad in M.J.C No. 226 of 2010 granted a maintenance of Rs. 6000/- per month to the applicant from the date of order. In Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2012 the Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad vide order dated 22-5-2012 reversed the order passed by the JMFC and dismissed the application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by the applicant. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Sessions Judge the applicant has preferred the present petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Facts of the case in short are that the applicant had preferred an application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the trial Court that marriage of the applicant and respondent took place on 17-11-1995. The respondent after consuming liquor was habitually doing cruelty upon the applicant. Ultimately on 3-11-2010, he ousted the applicant from his house and she was forced to leave her clothes and ornaments at the house of the respondent and thereafter she resided with her younger sister. She pleaded about the source of income of the respondent and claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance.

3. The respondent in his reply accepted the marriage but, denied that it was done according to the rituals of Hindu law. Only an affidavit was executed and therefore, marriage was not solemnized validly. The applicant was already married with one Gopal and it was informed to the respondent that a divorce of the applicant took place with her husband and after some time husband of the applicant had already expired but, after two years of marriage with the respondent, the respondent was informed that the previous husband of the applicant was alive. Since the applicant was not blessed with a child and therefore, she was quarrelling with the respondent and ultimately she left the house of the respondent. He denied about his income and therefore, it was prayed that the application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code be dismissed.

4. The JMFC after considering the evidence adduced by the parties found that the applicant was not married with Gopal and allegation made by the respondent to that effect was not correct. The respondent has accepted that being her husband, he was responsible to maintain the applicant. The trial Court found that he was competent to give a sum of Rs. 6000/- per month and therefore, such maintenance was granted from the date of order.

5. In revision the revisionary Court found that the respondent was already married with one Hiriyabai and therefore, marriage of the applicant and the respondent was invalid. Similarly, the applicant did not obtain divorce from her previous husband Gopal and therefore, the applicant was residing with the respondent without any valid marriage and therefore, she was not entitled to get the maintenance. Consequently, the revision was allowed and maintenance application of the applicant was dismissed.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

7. In the present matter, there are so many points relating to marriage of the parties and validity of that marriage. The respondent has accepted in his reply that marriage of the applicant took place with him but, rituals were not followed and it was accepted on the basis of affidavits and therefore, it was not a valid marriage in the eye of law. However, it would be apparent that the respondent admitted the fact that marriage of the applicant took place with the respondent and they lived as husband and wife. In this connection, the learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of this Court to the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Badshah vs. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse and another, 2014(2) M.P.H.T. 499 (SC) and Tulsa and others vs. Durghatiya and others, I.L.R (2008) M.P. 981. In the case of Tulsa (supra) the Apex Court has held as under :-

"11. "In Mohabhat Ali vs. Md. Ibrahim Khan, AIR 1929 PC 135 their