1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRI REVISION APPLICATION NO. 421 OF 2004 Sambu Sukumar s/o Sambu Prabhakar Shetty, Aged 32 years, Occupation Service, R/o Plot No. 10-A Gandhinagar, Near Rly. Stn., Secunderabad Applicant V E R S U S 1. Mitali w/o Sambu Sukumar, Aged 30 years, Occupation Household and Service, R/o At present Vikrant Apartments, Flat No.14, Vyankatesh Nagar, Near Deogiri College, Aurangabad 2. The State of Maharashtra Respondents Mr. Pradeep K. Palve, Advocate for the applicant Mr. M.D. Shinde, Advocate for the respondent No.1 Mr. S.N. Kendre, APP for the respondent No.2 / State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 15th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This revision application is filed to challenge the Judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Aurangabad, granting maintenance to the respondent No. 1 under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts of the case are as under : 2. The respondent No. 1 approached the Family Court, Aurangabad, saying that she is legally wedded wife of the applicant and that she and the applicant stayed together as husband and wife at Aurangabad for about 2 ½ years. She said that thereafter the applicant got transfer to Secunderabad, and thereafter, he started 2 neglecting her. Ultimately, she said, he refused to admit his relationship with her. She said, at the request of the applicant, after the marriage, she had left the job and now she is unable to maintain herself. The applicant opposed the application saying that before coming to Aurangabad, he had already married one usha in 2000. He said that the respondent No.1 was his colleague, but he denied having any relationship with her. In view of this, the learned Judge of the Family Court recorded depositions of the parties. The respondent No. 1 recorded her own deposition, in which, she said that on 4th October, 2001, her wedding took place at Aurangabad with the applicant. She said, at that wedding, her parents, relatives and friends and also the relatives, friends of the applicant, were present. She further admitted that this wedding took place at her parents’ house at Aurangabad. She however did not examine any person who had attended her wedding on 4th October, 2001. She examined two witnesses, out of them one said that he was a Physician, who had an occasion to see the applicant and respondent No.1 in his Dispensary as patients, and, he learnt from them that they are husband and wife. The other witness is a owner of a house at Aurangabad. He said, the applicant and respondent No.1 stayed in his house on rental basis and he understood that they were husband and wife. The witnesses do not prove the legal relationship. These witnesses were not present at the time of wedding, and so, they cannot prove the marriage between the applicant and the respondent No.1. 3. The parties come from middle class. Assuming a wedding took place at residential place of one of the parties, there would be arrangements like a Priest, feast for the guests and a photographer, who would take pictures of the ceremony for posterity. Even if a professional photographer is not attending a ceremony of this nature, 3 there would be at least one or two hobbiest, who would take pictures of the ceremony. Another feature of such a wedding is the compulsory registration of marriage. The parties are educated and they are supposed to know the importance and necessity of getting their marriage registered. All these things, it seems, did not take place in case of this particular wedding, as asserted by the respondent No.1. I think, the learned Judge of the lower Court erred in ignoring all these factors while coming to a conclusion that the respondent No.1 had proved her marriage with the applicant. The finding of the learned Judge on this issue, thus, is not only erroneous, but is perverse. In view of this, the case of the respondent No.1 fails. So, the revision deserves to be allowed. The revision stands allowed. The impugned Judgment is set aside. The amount deposited by the applicant in this Court, shall be refunded to him. In view of disposal of Criminal Revision Application, Criminal Application No. 480 of 2005 stands dismissed. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/cra/421/04/151010