KARTICK ROY Vs. PRABITRA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both sides are present. Heard both sides. This is an application at the instance of the husband/opposite party of Misc. Case No. 61 of 1998 with a prayer for setting aside the order of maintenance passed against him by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri, in connection with the said maintenance case.

(2.) From the revision application as well as from the nature of submissions made on behalf of the present husband-petitioner it is very much clearthat the husband/petitioner has challenged the order of maintenance mainly on the ground that the very pre-condition for passing the order of maintenance, i.e.the husband-wife relation between the party was never existing and the wife- opposite party totally failed to discharge her onus in the matter of establishing that relation before the Court below.

(3.) The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the husband/petitioner has taken me through the judgment impugned in this application along with the evidence of both the wife-opposite-party and also the husband/petitioner. The learned Advocate submits that it will appear from the judgment that the learned Magistrate was more concerned about the theory "living together" but he totally missed the point that although strict proof of marriage is not called for in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but that cannot exonerate the wife from showing some piece of evidence which will go to indicate that the parties were married under the existing custom to which they have faith and adherence.