The burden of proof lies with the petitioner in maintenance claims, and without conclusive evidence of a valid marriage, maintenance cannot be granted.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Y. Johnson Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Heard also Mr. Liaquat Ali, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.08.2018 passed in Criminal (Maintenance) Case No. 19 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Thoubal, Manipur.

3. The petitioner is the respondent/opposite party and the respondent herein is the petitioner in Criminal (Maintenance) Case No. 19 of 2015.

4. The respondent had filed Criminal (Maintenance) Case No. 19 of 2015 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the petitioner herein alleging that she was married to the petitioner by performing Nikah on 26.05.2013 and after Nikah, both lived together in their matrimonial home at the house of the petitioner. However, some time in the month of August, 2015, the respondent was compelled to leave the matrimonial home by the petitioner and since then, the respondent has been living at her parental home. It is alleged that thereafter, the petitioner married another woman as his second wife. Despite repeated requests made by the respondent to pay maintenance, the petitioner refused to maintain her. It is alleged that the petitioner was serving as Head Constable in Manipur Police Department and was getting salary of Rs. 32,000/- per month apart from other source of income from his landed and movable properties. Stating so, the respondent filed the petition claiming maintenance to Rs. 8,000/- per month.

5. Resisting the petition, the petitioner herein filed objection stating inter alia that the respondent was never married to the petitioner at any point of time and they never lived together as husband and wife at the house of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner never married any other woman as his second wife, including the respondent, after his wife namely, Maherjan Bibi, expired on 20.02.2010 leaving behind seven children. All the seven children are living with the petitioner and are dependent on the petitioner. It is also stated that he is getting a sum of Rs. 28,000/- per month as his salary and has no other source of income. According to the petitioner, the respondent was not a wife of the petitioner at any point of time and therefore, he is not liable to pay maintenance to the respondent.

6. Before the Family Court, the respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and one Rahimuddin and Mina were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. The Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the Respondent/wife. On the side of the petitioner, the petitioner examined himself as D.W.1 and daughter and son-in-law of the petitioner were examined as D.W.2 and D.W.3 and marked four documents.

7. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Family Court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent from the month of January 2016 on 10th of every succeeding English calendar month. The Family Court also directed the arrears to be paid by the petitioner in instalments at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

8. Assailing the order of The Family Court impugned in this revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner never got married with the present respondent and the impugned order is rather unjustified and that the reasons stated in the impugned order cannot be acted upon. He would submit that the Family Court failed to consider that the respondent should first prove her case and then only the petitioner has the burden to disprove the case of the respondent.

9. The learned counsel next submitted that the arguments of the respondent that she is the wife of the petitioner; that their marriage was solemnized; and that the respondent was living with the petitioner at the residence of the petitioner; were all shaken during the cross-examination of P.W.1. The said aspect was not considered by the