The burden lies on the petitioner to prove her status as a wife when contested, and maintenance will be granted only if the petitioner proves her status as the legally wedded wife.

By filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order, dated 29.04.2009 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia in Criminal Revision No.01 of 2009, whereunder the judgment and order, dated 24.12.2008 passed by learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Belonia in Case No. Misc. 41 of 2007 under Section 125 of CrPC was upheld.

2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. B. Majumder for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. A. Dasgupta for the respondent.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the fact leading to the filing of the present petition, is that the petitioner approached the Court of SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Belonia presenting a petition under Section 125 of CrPC praying for directing the respondent to pay her maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/per month on the ground that the respondent, being her husband was refusing and/or neglecting to maintain her having sufficient means. The petitioner further contended that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized as per Hindu rites on 15.07.1993 and thereafter they lived and cohabited as husband and wife but after about six months the respondent married another woman and refused to live with her and also was neglecting to maintain her.

The respondent by filing written objection inter alia contended that no marriage was solemnized between him and the petitioner and there was no occasion of living together as husband and wife and further stated that the petitioner claiming to be the wife of the respondent filed a criminal complaint in the Court of SDJM, Belonia in the year 1993 and that complaint was sent to Belonia P.S. and the police after investigation submitted final report in the complaint. The respondent further stated that on 16.06.1994 under the pressure of some political leaders and pursuant to advice of one advocate, namely Sujit Ranjan Biswas, the respondent paid Rs.12,000/to the petitioner and in a petition filed by the petitioner it was stated that the petitioner was not the legally married wife of the respondent. After thirteen years the petition claiming maintenance was filed only to harass the respondent.

4. Both side adduced oral evidence in support of their contentions and the learned SDJM by impugned judgment dated 24.12.2008 dismissed the prayer of the petitioner holding that the petitioner has failed to prove that she was the legally married wife of the respondent and therefore is not entitled to get any maintenance from the respondent.

5. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.01 of 2009 in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by judgment dated 29.04.2009 dismissed the revisional application and thereby upheld the judgment and order passed by the learned SDJM.

6. Aggrieved, the present petition under Section 482 of CrPC is filed.

7. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel for the petitioner candidly submitted that Section 125 of CrPC is enacted for social justice to protect a wife, old and infirm poor parents and children who cannot maintain themselves and it is the obligation of the person having sufficient means to maintain his wife, children and old parents. While a wife is seeking maintenance she is not required to prove the marital status as strictly as it is required in a case of bigamy or in a matrimonial suit. If the evidence to the extent that the petitioner has enjoyed the status of wife the criminal court should grant maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.

Referring to the evidence of OPW1, an advocate of Belonia Bar, Mr. Majumder, learned counsel submitted that an inference may be drawn that there was a status of husband and wife between the petitioner and the respondent and under such circumstances the learned courts below would grant maintenance. He has also submitted that a petition under Section 482 of CrPC is maintainable since there is no oth