The court affirmed that S.125 Cr.P.C. provides maintenance to women even without a formal marriage if cohabitation is established.

1. By way of the present revision petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.07.2014 passed by the Family Court, Jagdalpur, in Misc. Case No. 134 of 2013. By the said order, the Family Court in a proceeding under S.125 Cr.P.C. while allowing the said application has granted maintenance amount to the non - applicant No.1 by awarding Rs.5000/- per month to be paid by the petitioner.

2. The sole ground raised by the petitioner while assailing the said order of the Family Court was on the ground of non existence of the relationship of Husband and Wife between the petitioner and the respondent No.1.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has never married the respondent No.1 and there exist no husband and wife relationship between the two. He further makes a statement that at no point of time there has been any cohabitation between the two for the respondent No.1 to claim that she was given status of a wife by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has challenged the finding of the court below alleging non consideration of the specific stand by him before the family court that the respondent No.1 being kept in the house of the petitioner while he was posted at ITI Bastar as a maid so that the respondent No.1 could take care of petitioner's mother who was not keeping good health during those days and subsequently in a couple of years he got transferred from Bastar and has been posted at Korba since long. At Korba there is no relation whatsoever between them and neither has she joined him as maid or as his wife or so called live in relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 all along his posting at Korba.

4. It is also emphasized by the petitioner on the fact that the respondent No.1 has infact filed the claim petition only with an intention of extorting money from the petitioner. Apart from that, there is no consideration whatsoever. He submits that had the respondent No.1 been wife of the petitioner or for that matter the respondent No.1 had a long cohabitation with the petitioner and had been staying with him as husband and wife then, why did she not file claim petition earlier and why at this belated stage of over 20 years she is now filing the claim application and how was she maintaining herself for all these period, more particularly when she was residing at Bastar while the petitioner was working at Korba for almost two decades.

5. Counsel for the petitioner drawing contentions to the pleadings and evidence which have come before the court below submits that the pleadings and evidence of the respondent No.1 in the claim before the court below was so incomplete by which itself it has to be clearly inferred that there was no husband and wife relationship between the two. He further went on to submit that respondent No.1 infact has not been able to give details of the marriage that took place between the two by providing the date & place of marriage and also witness to the said marriage etc. and in the absence of any such cogent evidence being adduced by the respondent No.1, the court below could not have drawn inference against the petitioner while allowing the claim application. By drawing attention of the court towards documents which have been exhibited before the court below it is submitted that on a couple of places the name of the father of respondent No. 2 has been reflected to be one Suresh Kumar and based on the said entry the petitioner intended to assail the impugned order stating that it was not the petitioner who was the husband of the respondent No.1, but it was one Suresh Kumar.

6. According to coun