In a maintenance case under Section 125 of CrPC, the proof of marriage and cohabitation does not require the same level of detail as in other matrimonial suits.

JUDGMENT

By this petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 the petitioner challenged order dated 17.04.2009, passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, South Tripura in Case No. Criminal Misc.(FC) 27 of 2008.

2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. D. Chakraborty, assisted by learned counsel, Ms. S. Gupta for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. D. Bhattacharji for the respondents.

3. Facts, in short, are as follows:-

3.1. The respondents, as petitioners approached the Family Court, Udaipur, South Tripura, presenting an application under Section 125 of CrPC claiming maintenance for them @ ` 2,500/- per month [` 1,500/- for petitioner No. 1(wife) and ` 1,000/- for petitioner No. 2(son)] and prayed for a direction to the opposite party to make payment of the said maintenance allowance to the petitioners, i.e. the respondents herein. It has been contended by the respondents in their petition before the Family Court that marriage between the petitioner herein and the respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 12th of Agrahayan, 2000 BS as per Tribal customary rites and ceremonies and thereafter they lived and cohabited as husband and wife and the respondent No. 2 was born out of the wedlock of the petitioner and respondent No. 1. The petitioner demanded ` 5,000/- to respondent No. 1 to bring the amount from her parental home but the parents of respondent No. 1 could not fulfill the demand and, as a result she was subjected to cruelty both mentally and physically. Respondent No. 1 also alleged that there were several village meetings in the house of her father to mitigate the dispute and on all occasions the petitioner giving assurance that he will not torture on respondent No. 1 further, took her back to the matrimonial home but again treated her badly as before. She has also alleged that on 30.03.2006 she was mercilessly beaten by the petitioner and thereafter she was put out of the matrimonial home with her infant child. She alleged that the petitioner earned ` 6,000/- per month and she has no source of income to maintain herself and her child and prayed for maintenance @ ` 1,500/- for herself and ` 1,000/- for her son, totaling ` 2,500/- per month.

3.2. The opposite party, i.e. the petitioner herein contested the case by filing written objection, inter alia stating that no marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 on the alleged date and time and there was no question of living together as husband and wife in the house of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 was not born due to any cohabitation between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 and that the claim was totally false. It is also contended that there was no relation at all in any manner between the petitioner and the respondent. It is further contended by the petitioner that he joined the extremist group in the year 1999 and surrendered in the year 2006 and that he has no fixed income as alleged. Since there was no matrimonial relation between him and respondent No. 1 there was no question of payment of maintenance.

4. In course of trial before the learned Judge, Family Court the respondent No. 1 examined herself as PW1 and also examined three more witnesses in support of her claim. The petitioner also examined himself as DW1 and examined eleven more witnesses in support of his case. The learned Judge, Family court considering the pleadings and the evidence directed the petitioner herein to pay maintenance @ ` 500/- per month to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 each, w.e.f. the date of filing of the application, i.e. 02.06.2008.

Felt aggrieved the present revisional application is filed.

5. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that the respondent No. 1 simply stated that her marriage was solemnized on 12th of Agrahayan, 2000 BS as per Tribal customary rites and ceremonies. Her witnesses supported her contention that they were present in the marriage. Nothing stated by the respondent No. 1 or her witnesses as to