The High Court of Jharkhand, while rejecting a revision application filed for quashing of the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, whereby the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed, held that strict proof of marriage in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, is not required, particularly when the evidence is on record that the Applicant was living with the opposite party as husband and wife.
Brief Facts:
As per the case of the applicant, she was married to this petitioner on 10.03.2013. Initially, after marriage, there was normal conjugal relation between them, but thereafter, the relationship turned sour and due to the conduct of the Petitioner, she suffered miscarriage twice. It was averred that the petitioner has got employment in Government service, in the category reserved for the handicapped. After that, he was getting proposals for marriage from different quarters and had deserted the applicant and was not supporting her, consequently, she was not in a position to maintain herself. The learned Court ordered the maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month. Being aggrieved by the order, an instant revision application has been preferred on the ground that the applicant was not a legally married wife of the petitioner. As per the case of the applicant, no certificate has been adduced into evidence on behalf of the applicant to show that the marriage was indeed performed.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that even if it is assumed that the petitioner was in a live-in relationship with the applicant/opposite party no.2, they cannot be treated as husband and wife, which is the basic ingredient for passing an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that Exhibit F cannot be relied upon as that is not evidence of marriage, it is only an application for marriage, but there is no other material to show that the applicant was married to Pappu Kumar.
Observations of the court:
The Court noted that the witnesses on behalf of the applicant have consistently supported the testimony about the marriage, whereas the witnesses examined on behalf of the O.P. have denied the factum of marriage between the applicant and the opposite party.
The decision of the Court:
The court, dismissing the petition, held that a maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to be paid by the Petitioner to the Applicant shall be just and fair.
Case Title: Ram Kumar Ravi vs State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr. Revision No.946 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. Jasvindar Mazumdar
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Alpana Verma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
