INDU NIMBA PAWAR Vs. SUMANBAI KADU PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a husbands petition challenging the order granting maintenance dated 30-3-1988 in Criminal Revision Application No. 250 of 1987 on the file of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik. Heard both the sides.

(2.) THE first respondent-wife and two minor children, respondents 2 and 3, filed a petition for maintenance against the petitioner under section 125 Cr. P. C. in Maintenance Application No. 34 of 1985 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Satana. After recording evidence, the learned Magistrate held that the marriage between the parties is not proved and accordingly dismissed the petition by his order dated 22-5-1987. Then the wife and children carried the matter in revision before the learned Sessions Judge. After reappreciating the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the marriage between the parties has been duly proved and that the present respondents 2 and 3 are the children born to petitioner and first respondent. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision application and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month to the wife, Rs. 50/- to the two children from the month of May 1987. Being aggrieved by that order, the husband has come up with the present petition.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has questioned the correctness and validity of the order of the learned Sessions Judge. It was argued that the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent is not proved and they are not husband and wife and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in granting maintenance to the first respondent. Similarly, it was argued that the respondents 2 and 3 are not the children of the petitioner and hence they are not entitled to any maintenance. It was also argued that the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent is a void marriage, and therefore, the first respondent is not entitled to any maintenance. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the first respondent contended that strict proof of marriage is not necessary in a proceeding under section 125 Cr. P. C. It was argued that the marriage has been duly proved and the parties have lived together for many years and two children are born and there is a presumption in favour of the validity of the marriage. It was, therefore, argued that the order of maintenance may be confirmed and it is open to the husband to get a declaration from a competent Civil Court that the marriage is void.