The Allahabad high court while upholding the order passed by family court has held that while claiming maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., a party need not furnish strict proof of performance of essential rites of marriage.
The Single Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh has held that,
“The position of law is that if from the evidence which is led, the Magistrate / court is prima facie satisfied with regard to the performance of marriage in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which are of summary nature, strict proof of performance of essential rites is not required. Either of the parties aggrieved by the order of maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. can approach the civil court for declaration of status as the order passed under Section 125 does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties.”
The present case is a revision which has been preferred by one Irshad Ali against order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly against him under section 125 Cr.P.C. Whereby he has been directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per months to his wife.
It has submitted by the counsel on behalf of revisionist that impugned order is against facts and law and beyond jurisdiction and the amount of maintenance awarded by the court below is arbitrary and excessive.
It was further argued that his wife was not legally wedded wife and thus, proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable at her behest and therefore, impugned order is against law. It has submitted that at the time of alleged marriage, revisionist was a minor, aged about 14 years, and thus, he was not competent to enter into contract of marriage. The nikahnama filed by opposite party does not bear any signature of revisionist and that the said document is forged and fabricated.
The court has held that after considering averments and evidence of parties, it is apparent that court below has considered entire relevant facts and evidence and that findings of the court below are based on evidence. No illegality, perversity or error of jurisdiction could be shown in the impugned order. The quantum of maintenance awarded by the court below can also not be said excessive or arbitrary.
Case details:
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1555 of 2020
Revisionist :- Irshad Ali
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shri Krishna MishraCounsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Quorum: Justice Raj Beer Singh
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
