The strict proof of marriage is not a requirement in the case under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C: Chhattisgarh High Court
The parties had lived as a wife and spouse, enough to draw their marriage suppositions. It is found that the claimant and the respondent have lived together as a husband and wife for some time, based on the submissions and the present facts. It is undisputed now. The applicant’s only ground of dispute is that he was not legal when he married the respondent. The judgement was passed by the High Court of Chattisgarh in the case of Meghraj Sahu v. Smt. Lata Bai [CRR No. 490 of 2020] by Single Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Saman.
This criminal revision petition has been brought against the order Passed in M.J.C, granting monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order is erroneous and illegal. The respondent has failed to prove that she was the legally wedded wife of this applicant. Learned Family Court has erroneously held that although the respondent is not a legally wedded wife of the applicant even then, she was entitled to maintenance. Counsel further referred to Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and Another, wherein it was submitted that “it is not a case in which the respondent was ignorant about the previous marriage of the applicant, therefore, she cannot be deemed as the legally wedded wife of the applicant.”
Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions so made and submits, that the respondent has proved her case to show her entitlement for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. After the dispute arose between the applicant and the respondent, a compromise had taken place between them. He further referred to Smt. Motim Bai Borkar vs. Arjun Singh Borkar, wherein it was held by this Court that “the respondent had married the lady lived together as husband and wife and cohabited with her, now cannot be permitted to turn around and say that the petitioner is not his legally wedded wife.”
The court while dismissing the petition observed that this case reveals that the applicant knew that the respondent was already married to Bisahu Ram Sahu, regarding which the respondent claims that she has customarily obtained a divorce. This also is a fact, that the applicant was married to one Devki Bai in the year 1992-93, but there is no evidence present to show that the previous marriage of the applicant was continuing and subsisting when the marriage of the applicant with the respondent had in the year 2009. “After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the evidence of the case and the position of law as settled, the finding of the learned Family Court that the respondent has entitlement in a grant of maintenance cannot be said to be erroneous in any respect.”