SUDAMA PRASAD Vs. SHAIL BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .

(2.) THE trial Court disrnissed the petition u/s 125 Cr. P.C. on 24/6/1989 on the ground that the proof required on solernnization of rnarriage between the parties as per Hindu Rites was deficient. THE revisional Court set aside that order on 7/7/1993 holding on the basis of evidence that the facturn of rnarriage between the parties was duly proved in context of the petition U/S 125 Cr.P.C. In view of the evidence of petitioners father that though he hirnself had not gone with the Barat being busy in rnarnage of his other son he had entrusted the task of perforrning petitioners rnarriage to one of his relations and petitioners Barat returned back withthe bride and thereafter they lived as husband and wife, the aforesaid finding of the revisional Court appears to De perfectly legal as the standard of proof of marriage u/s 125 Cr. P.C. is notso.high as in a case of prosecution u/ss 494, 495, 497 or 498 Cr.P.C. (Jalqndar v. Sobha1). In Sadhu v. Sarathibala2), it has been held that evidence to the effect that the couple was living as husband and wife was enough to substantiate the claim for maintenance even in the absence of proof of the performance of sapta-padi etc. Since such evidence was there in plenty the learned Revisional Court below was justified in passing the impugned order, dated 7/7/1993.