SUKHADEO PITAMBAR DEVADKAR Vs. PARVATI @ LAXMIBAI SUKHADEO DEVADKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises from the proceedings adopted by the Respondent No.1-wife for the maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the marriage was not proved. The Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No.249 of 1989 reversed the decision of the JMFC dated 15th May 1989 in Cri. Misc. Application No.28 of 1987 and allowed the application for maintenance and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.250/- per month by the Judgment and order dated 1st August 1990.

(2.) MR .Deshpande, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that there is no sufficient evidence to prove the existence of marriage between the parties and, therefore, maintenance should not have been granted under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. to the Respondent No.1. According to him the trial Court was right in holding that the marriage between the parties was not proved. Since the Respondent No.1-wife is not represented I heard Mr.Shinde learned APP who is appearing on behalf of the State and also took assistance of Mr.Galeria who assisted me on behalf of the Respondent No.1-wife.

(3.) AS against that the Sessions Court accepted the oral testimony of Respondent No.1 and the priest who claimed to have performed the disputed marriage and gave some details about the alleged ceremony by stating that after bride-groom come to the Marital Pandal there was ceremony of offering Mangal Ashtakas, garlanding of each other and there was also Suptapadi and Homam performed. The Sessions Court, observing that for the purpose of granting maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, the strict proof of marriage is not necessary, held the marriage of Respondent No.1 with the petitioner proved.