ASIT DEO PETWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 30.04.2016 passed in Maintenance Case No. 08 of 2005 by which he has been directed to pay Rs. 7500/- per month to the applicant no. 1 who has claimed herself his wife and Rs. 2500/- per month to the applicant no. 2 who according to the applicant no. 1 was born from her wedlock with the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two-fold contentions : (i) the opposite party no. 1 has failed to prove her marriage with the petitioner, and (ii) grant of maintenance beyond the claim made in the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is illegal.

(3.) At the outset it needs to be indicated that the proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is summary in nature and strict proof of a fact and compliance of the rules of evidence are not insisted in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The paramount consideration in an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to see that a wife and/or minor child does not suffer in destitution. For the purpose of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the expression wife has been interpreted in a manner which is different from the strict interpretation applied in criminal cases and, therefore, proof of performance of essential rituals of marriage is not required and if evidence is laid by the applicant that over a period of time she has been residing with the opposite party, to whom she claims herself married wife, as husband and wife, then marriage between the parties shall be inferred. In "Kamala Vs. M.R. Mohan Kumar,2018 SCCOnLineSC 2121, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :