Raju Oraon vs Ghurni Orain

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.01.2016 passed in Maintenance Case No. 36 of 2012 by which he has been directed to pay Rs.

2000/- per month to the opposite party no. 1 and Rs. 1000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 as maintenance allowance, besides Rs. 2000/- as

litigation cost. 2. The only plea urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the opposite party no. 1 is not his legally married wife and the opposite party no.

2 is not his daughter. 3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to prove marriage between the parties opposite party

no. 1 was required to lead evidence establishing that rituals of marriage were performed. However, on the evidences led by her though the learned

Principal Judge, Family Court has found that rituals of marriage were not performed still she and her daughter are held entitled for monthly

maintenance. 4. In the proceeding of Maintenance Case No. 36 of 2012, the petitioner has examined four witnesses and the opposite party no. 1, who

was the applicant no. 1 in the the applicant no. 1. He has spoken about relationship between his daughter and the present petitioner, pregnancy of his

daughter, panchayati and undertaking of the petitioner to accept his daughter as his wife. In paragraph no. 12 of his cross-examination, he has

reiterated that with the intervention of the villagers marriage between his daughter and the petitioner was performed. The opposite party no. 1 has

examined herself as P.W.2. She has stated about sexual relationship and her marriage with the petitioner. She has further stated that on 23.09.2012

she and her minor daughter were thrown out from house by the petitioner and he was not maintaining them. Before marriage about three years ago

she was first raped by him and when a panchayati was convened he brought her to his house at which address her Aadhar Card was prepared. P.W.

3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 have also supported her case, however, P.W. 4 has stated that all the rituals of the marriage were not performed. 5. Several

documents have also been filed by the opposite party no. 1 to establish that she was married to the petitioner. 6. The witnesses examined by the

petitioner have stated that the petitioner was married to another lady, namely, Seema Orain and that he has no relationship with the opposite party no.

They have denied that any panchayti was convened and that the petitioner has ever demanded dowry.

On the basis of the materials laid before him, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has held as under:

“7. I have considered that the legislation under section 125 Cr.P.C is a beneficial legislation and the object of the legislature is to be achieved by

liberally construing the evidence in Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai, reiterating the legal position, it was held : - ""Section 125 Cr.P.C is a measure of social

justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this court in captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal Vs. Veena Kaushal

falls within constitutional speedy remedy for the supply of food clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and

natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted

in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Vs. State of Gujarat."" 8. I am of opinion that even if the rituals of the marriage of the petitioner with the O.P. was not

made, the petitioner was accepted by the O.P. as his wife and in criminal case also the 1.0. has accepted that the relationship of the petitioner with the

O.P. as husband and wife. It may be inferred that the petitioner was living with the O.P. akin to her spouse and she was accepted by the O.P and his

family members as the wife of the O.P. 9. The O.P. himself has been examined in the court and he has been found to be aged about 23 years by me.

He is a well built healthy person and he can not escape the liability of maintaining of his wife and daughter.

I have kept in mind that proceeding u/s 125 is a summary proceeding, quasi civil in nature, needless to say that the status of fatherhood can not be

decided in a summary proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C.†8. The proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is summary in nature

and strict rules of evidence are not insisted upon in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provisions under section

125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not mention the expression legally married. If a woman is accepted by the family members of a man and

the society as his wife, marriage between the parties even though all the rituals of marriage were not performed is presumed. In “Dwarika Prasad

Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Anotherâ€​ reported in (1999) 7 SCC 675, 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 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....."" 9. 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.....

In the proceeding of Maintenance Case No. 36 of 2012, the opposite party no. 1, her father and other witnesses have spoken about marriage of

the petitioner with O.P.W.3, who is the present petitioner. In the documents filed by the opposite party no. 1 the petitioner has been shown as her

husband and father of the minor daughter, namely, Naushim Orain. The opposite party no. 1 has instituted a case under sections 498A and 506 of the

Indian Penal Code and under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which during the investigation was found true and a charge-sheet was

submitted against the petitioner. On such evidence, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has rightly held that the applicants were entitled for

maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; strict proof of marriage is not sine qua non for an order under section 125 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. In the above facts and particularly keeping in mind the limitations under the revisional jurisdiction [refer,

“Sheonandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar"" reported in (1987) 1 SCC 288,] I am not inclined to interfere in this matter and, accordingly, Criminal

Revision No. 390 of 2016 is dismissed.