D.K. Sinha, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. Both the criminal revisions have arisen out of common order passed in M.P. Case No. 15 of 2002, by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, on 8.2.2006 which is impugned, whereby and whereunder, learned Principal Judge by allowing a proceeding under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure directed the husband Tulsi Mahto to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month to Gunjari Devi from the date of the impugned order as her maintenance allowance, with default stipulation.
3. Petitioner Gunjari Devi of Cr. Revision No. 405 of 2006 was aggrieved of the order impugned on the ground that amount awarded to her by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro was inadequate as against the demand of Rs. 3,000/- per month and hence she preferred criminal revision.
4. On the other hand, petitioner Tulsi Mahto of Cr. Revision No. 173 of 2006 was aggrieved of the order impugned on the ground that Gunjari Devi was an imposter and was never his married wife.
5. Mr. Tripurari Prnsail, learned Counsel submitted for and on behalf of Tulsi Mahto that a compliant case was instituted by Gunjari Devi against Tulsi Mahto and others in the year 1978 for the offence under Sections 498A and 494 I.P.C. vide Case No. 20C/78 but all the thirteen accused persons were acquitted as no valid marriage was proved between Tulsi Mahto and Gunjari Devi in view of her admission that she was aged about 7-8 years at the relevant time of marriage and hence it was held that she was not under permissible age according to Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to enter into contract of marriage and hence it was void.
6. Learned Counsel for Gunjari Devi submitted that she was married to Tulsi Mahto some 30-32 years ago in accordance with the Hindu rites and customs and thereafter she went to her matrimonial home where she lived with Tulsi Mahto for about six years and a son was born to them. After birth of the said son, it was alleged that Tulsi Mahto solemnized his second marriage with one Sanichariya Devi, daughter of one Dayal Mahto and thereafter her misery started. At the instance of his second wife Sanichariya Devi, she was driven out from her matrimonial home. She was unable to maintain herself as her husband Tulsi Mahto voluntarily neglected and refused to maintain her. It was further submitted that Tulsi Mahto was in regular employment in Dhori colliery and was drawing a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month besides bonus to the extent of Rs. 4,000/- quarterly and Rs. 5,000/- annually. As it was difficult to maintain herself as well as her son at Rs. 1,000/- per month being the maintenance amount awarded by the impugned order hence the criminal revision. A number of documents such as ration card, school leaving certificate, caste certificate, and income certificate of her son Lalit Kishor Mahto have been filed from which would indicate that father of her son Lalit Kishor Mahto is none other than Tulsi Mahto. Gunjari Devi filed several other documents such as voter list, voter identity card and other documents in which she has been figured as the wife of Tulsi Mahto. Finally the learned Counsel pointed out that by executing panchnama, Tulsi Mahto had undertaken to maintain his wife Gunjari Devi as well as his son and to part share in his property as well as the final payment drawn from the C.C.L. (Annexure-2). She prayed for the enhancement of the maintenance amount.
7. Mr. Tripurari Prasad, learned Counsel, challenged the impugned order on the ground that without deciding the factum of his alleged marriage with Gunjnri Devi the order impugned, by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro is not maintainable. Proof of marriage between the parties in case of claim by either of the spouse is sine qua non for awarding an order of maintenance in a proceeding under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure and reliance has been placed upon the decisions of Patna High Court in the case of Mohd. Belal v. Sogra Khatoon, reported in 1990-East CrC 306(Pat) 306 wherein it was held,
20. The law relating to the standard of proof in matrimonial cases or cases claiming maintenance, when the marriage in question is seriously disputed, is that it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of preponderance of evidence and circumstances. The marriage in this case, therefore, required to be proved in same manner as a fact is required to be proved under Section 3 of the Evidence Act. This having been not done by the opposite party (Sogra) in the trial court, she was not entitled to maintenance. The trial court has not approached and appreciated evidence from this angle, the finding recorded by hint is erroneous and requires interference by this Court to correct a mistake of incorrect appreciation of evidence and law.
Learned counsel further submitted that when the marriage is challenged by the petitioner Tulsi Mahto the onus is heavy upon Gunjari Devi to prove her legal marriage with him and for want of any evidence in support of valid marriage, she is not entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents:
If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, unable to maintain herself, or his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, a Magistrate of the 1st class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, orders such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, at such monthly rate[***], as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct.
9. Advancing his argument, Mr. Prasad submitted that a proceeding under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure was earlier initiated against Tulsi Mahto at the instance of Gunjari Devi in Case No. 22/78 which was dropped by the S.D.J.M. Bermo at Giridih (the then as was) on 24.1.1980 for non-prosecution and, therefore, subsequent proceeding after 22 years before the Principal Judge was not maintainable. Definite case of Tulsi Mahto before the Court-below was that he was married to none other than Sanichariya Devi and that he was never married to Gunjari Devi. Since the marriage could not be proved, Gunjari Devi was not entitled for maintenance and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of proof of marriage with Sanichariya Devi, apart from oral evidence of Lalu Singh, Ashok Kr. Mahato, and Jugal Mahato as also his statement in the proceeding, certain documents were proved which have got no bearing in the impugned order. The documents which relied upon were the judgment passed in Case No. 20C/78, whereby and whereunder, all the thirteen accused persons including Tulsi Mahto and his legally wedded wife Sanichariya Devi were acquitted from the charge under Sections 498A and 494 I.P.C. Annexure-4 was the order passed by S.D.J.M., Bermo at Giridih in a proceeding under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure initiated at the instance of Gunjari Devi against Tulsi Mahto which was dropped for non-prosecution. Annexure-5 was the electoral roll of Legislative Assembly Constituency, 1980 of Village Nawadih, Thana No. 60 in which husband's name of Sanichariya Devi has been mentioned as Tulsi Mahto at item No. 12. Similarly, in the service book of Tulsi Mahto (Annexure-6) the name of Sanichariya Devi has been mentioned as his wife in the column of Gratuity and C.M.P.F. account number R-6/443. The ration card (Annexure-7) also bears the name of Sanichariya Devi as the wife of Tulsi Mahto.
10. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Gunjari Devi, reiterated that certain documents were produced in a proceeding such as red card (Annexure-1) which bears the name of Tulsi Mahto in the column of father's name of the card owner Lalit Kishor Mahto and the name of Gunjari Devi being his mother. The School Leaving Certificate issued by Government subsidized High School, Nawadih indicated that father's name of Lalit Kishor Mahto was Tulsi Mahto and his name also bears in the Caste Certificate issued to her son Lalit Kishor Mahto. In support of the evidence that Gunjari Devi was the wife of Tulsi Mahto, photo-identity card of Gunjari Devi issued by Election Commission of India vide MWH1677491 was produced. Another relevant document is the electoral roll of Dumri Assembly of the year 1995, in which name of Gunjari Devi has got bearing at item No. 313 wherein name of Tulsi Mahto has been mentioned as her husband. Annexure-2 is the panchanama which was executed on 28.7.1998, whereby and whereunder, Tulsi Mahto had undertaken in presence of as many as seventy witnesses that he would maintain his wife Gunjari Devi by constructing a separate room with verandah at separate place and would deliver 30 Kgs. of rice besides payment of Rs. 1200/- per month and also get the name of Gunjari Devi entered in his provident fund account number. He further admitted in the bond, executed on 17.2.1999, in presence of several witnesses, that Gunjari Devi was his first wife and from her a son was born, namely, Lalit Kishor Mahto.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, materials on record as well as perusal of the impugned order, I find that petition under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed with the observation of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro that marriage between the parties was proved for the purpose of the application of the complainant under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It was observed that strict proof of marriage is not necessary in accordance with the spirit of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. For the purpose of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the standard of proof of marriage should not be as high as under Hindu Marriage Act for divorce or under Sections 494/ 495/ 497/498 of Indian Penal Code. Learned Principal Judge further observed that when marriage was established, maintenance should be awarded and that the legal validity of the alleged marriage cannot be strictly questioned in a case of maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
12. From the documents submitted on behalf of the petitioner Tulsi Mahto in Cr. Revision No. 173 of 2006 specially Annexure-3 which was judgment delivered in Case No. 20 C/78 for the charge under Sections 494/498A of Indian Penal Code in which all the accused persons were acquitted, the trial court observed at paragraph-9 and to quote,
The P.W.-5 Gunjari Devi has herself given out her age as 16 years and it is said that she was married 7/8 years back when the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was in force. According to her statement she was wedded when she was 8/9 years old. The. Hindu legislature for her maintenance in a proceeding under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. I further find and observe that the order impugned passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in M.P. Case No. 15 of 2002 is well discussed which does not call for interference in criminal revisions either by enhancement of the maintenance amount in favour of Gunjari Devi or for setting aside the order impugned in favour of Tulsi Mahto.
16. In the result, there being no merit, both the criminal revisions are dismissed.