Purno Chandra Pradhan vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 29.09.2015 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 13 of 2008, by which he has been directed to

pay Rs.5000/- per month as monthly allowance to the opposite party no. 2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no. 2 is not the legally married wife of the petitioner and, moreover, claim for

maintenance has been raised more than 30 years after the alleged marriage between the parties.

In the proceeding of Original Maintenance Case No. 13 of 2008, the parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence. The opposite party no.

2 has examined three witnesses and filed copies of voter identity card, ration card, First Information Report and charge-sheet in G.R Case No. 186 of

2004. The petitioner has also examined two witnesses and produced copies of voter list for the year 2009-2014.

The witnesses examined by the opposite party no. 2 have spoken about marriage of the petitioner with her about 30 years ago at Kera Temple

according to Hindu customs. The opposite party no. 2 has stated that out of the wedlock a son, namely, Rameshwar Pradhan was born but thereafter

the petitioner has contracted second marriage with another woman-Sabita Devi and thrown her out from her matrimonial home. According to the

opposite party no. 2, a panchayati was convened and it was decided that the petitioner shall pay Rs.50/- per month as maintenance for her which he

paid for 3-4 months. The petitioner has, however, led evidence on the point that his marriage was solemnized with Sabita Devi and in the voter list

name of the husband of the opposite party no. 2 is recorded as Chinta Gope and not the petitioner.

The learned Principal District Judge, Family Court, Chaibasa has held that from the materials brought on record it can be inferred that the opposite

party, petitioner herein, who has himself changed his name as Budhram Rout and is working as a railway employee has not denied in his written

statement or led any evidence which would prima-facie establish that the applicant, opposite party no.2 herein, is not his wife and he is not liable to pay

maintenance to her.

In the proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is a summary proceeding, strict proof of a fact, particularly, proof of

marriage is not required. The strict rules of evidence are also not made applicable in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. In “Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another†reported in (1999) 7 SCC 67,5 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

held as under:

“ ...... In our view, validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C is to be determined on the

basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties. The Standard of proof of marriage in such proceedings is not as strict as is required

in a trial of offence under Section 494 IPC. If the claimant in proceedings under section 125 of the Code succeeds in showing that she and

the respondent have lived together as husband and wife, the court can presume that they are legally wedded spouses, and in such a

situation, the party who denies the marital status can rebut the presumption.....â€​

In paragraph no. 9 of the judgment the Supreme Court has further observed, thus:

“9. It is to be remembered that the order passed in an application under section 125 Cr. P.C does not finally determine the rights and

obligations of the parties and the said section is enacted with a view to provide a summary remedy for providing maintenance to a wife,

children and parents.....â€​

In the above facts, keeping in mind object behind the provisions under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I am not inclined to interfere

in this matter and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 1443 of 2015 is dismissed.

I.A No. 863 of 2017 stands disposed of.

Let the lower-court records be sent to the court concerned forthwith.