BHABAGRAHI SAMANTARAY Vs. SATYABHAMA SWAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband is the petitioner before this Court challenging the order dated 19.8.1999 granting maintenance to the opposite party in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Criminal Proceeding No. 345 of 1996.

(2.) FROM the record it appears that opposite party filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. read with Section 7 of the Family Court Act claiming maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month from the petitioner. The case of the opposite party is that she married the petitioner in the month of June, 1979 according to caste, custom provided in their community and led a conjugal life till 21st August, 1990. At the time of marriage gold ornaments, cash etc. were given to the petitioner towards dowry. While the matter stood thus for no reason the opposite party was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment as the opposite party did not conceive. After torture, cruelty and ill-treatment for sometime the opposite party was forced to stay with her parents. It is further alleged that the petitioner had neglected her. The opposite party claimed that the petitioner is a Central Government employee and getting Rs. 8,000/- per month towards his salary and he has also income from agricultural lands and accordingly claimed maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month.

(3.) LAW is well settled that in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. strict proof of marriage as required in a civil proceeding is not necessary. However, this Court has also held that when the marriage is in dispute, some evidence must be led by the wife to show that some rituals of marriage had been performed. The opposite party examined herself as P.W.1. In her evidence she has only stated that she married the petitioner 17 years back and led a conjugal life for a period of ten years. Though in examination-in-chief she did not say anything with regard to ritual that had taken place during the marriage, in cross-examination she has only stated that the marriage took place in the month of Asadha, 1979. One Bhikari Pati was the Purohit and one Babaji Barik was the Barber in the marriage. P.W.2 is the sister of the opposite party. She has stated that during the marriage of the opposite party, one Dinabandhu acted as the priest and Babaji acted as the Barber. She has also stated that the priest is dead in the meantime but the Barber is alive. She has not stated anything about any ritual that had taken place during the marriage. P.W.3 is the mediator, who had arranged the marriage. In his evidence he has only stated that the marriage took place twenty years back and after keeping the opposite party for a period of about 10 years she was left in the house of her parents. This witness has also not stated anything about any ritual that had taken place during the marriage though he was a mediator. The petitioner examined himself as O.P.W.1 and he denied the marriage altogether.