CHAKRADHAR PRADHAN Vs. ASALI DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER challenges the order of the learned Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rairakhole, dated 8th of November, 1982, in Criminal Misc. Case No .1 of 1979 by which order the learned Magistrate, has directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 100/ -to opposite party No 1 and Rs. 60/ - to opposite party No. 2.

(2.) . Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 125 Of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') alleging that they are the wife and son respectively of the petitioner, petitioner having married opposite party No. 1 in Gandhary from by exchange of garlands in temple and out of their wedlock the son (opposite party No. 2) is born. It was further alleged that the petitioner -husband refused to maintain the wife and the minor child who have no source of maintenance where as the petitioner has sufficient means.

(3.) MR . Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner only raises one contention, that is, on the evidence adduced in this case, it cannot be said that the opposite party No. 1 is the legally married wife of the petitioner and, therefore, the order of maintenance so far as the wife -opposite party No. 1 is concerned must be set aside. Mr. Mohanty, however, does not challenge the order of maintenance granted in favour of the son (opposite party No. 2), The learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand submits that the scheme under Chapter -IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure providing Section 125 for speedy and summary remedy of maintenance to the neglected wife and children does not require strict proof of all the formalities of a valid marriage as contemplated under the Hindu Law and for the purpose of Section 125 of the Code, it would be sufficient if it is proved that the man and woman lived as husband and wife. This point came up for consideration in the case of Soudamini Dei v. Bhagirathi Raj, 53 (1982) CLT, 93. In that case, the learned Judge held :