IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Qzma§§3 W'sggE yr; Jr: 3 Cr.M.P. Noga l‘ 2007 PETITIONER NON-APPLICANT Manbodh, S/O. Nanhu Ram Nirala, Aged about : 35 years. R/O. Village : Chhote Hardi, Police Station 8a Tahsil : Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) RESPONDENT Sadhmati, APPLICANT W/o. Manbodh, Aged about : 20 years R/ O. Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Mitthumuda, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) for” PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL / . PROCEDURE CODE x/ Being aggrieved by the order dated 31. 10.2003 passed by the Court of 4th Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Court) @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Cr.M.P.No.84I2007 Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Present:- Shri Govind Dewangan, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sharma, counsel for the respondent. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 31-1 0-2011) Heard. 2. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 31-10-2003 passed by the Revisional Court, whereby order dated 29-05-2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh in Misc. Criminal Case No.9/2000, granting maintenance, has been affirmed. r} . 3. Assailing the correctness and validity of orders granting maintenance and , affirmed by the Revisional Court, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Courts below have committed patent illegality and recorded a perverse finding i with regard to solemnization of marriage between the parties. l-Ie submits that the t applicant having specifically denied marriage between the parties, the burden was on the respondent to establish valid marriage between the parties, before she could be granted maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the‘ petitioner submits that the petitioner and his witnesses have clearly stated that no marriage was ever solemnized between the applicant and the respondent and in fact the petitioner was married to some other lady, ‘but the Courts below ‘ have relied upon the evidence led by the respondent, which failed to prove valid l " Ii marriage between the parties. / m\L: Petitioner Manbodh Non-applicant Versus ‘ ‘ Respondent Sadhmati 1 i Applicant (b1 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that though the petitioner had disputed marriage, the respondent not only examined herself to state that she was married to the petitioner, but also examined as many as four witnesses, Who supported her case, by stating that marriage was solemnized between the parties in their presence. He submits that Kapur Nirala, P.W.3 has specificaily stated that the marriage betWeen the parties was solemnized according to Hindu customs. His evidence in this regard could not be controverted. He submits that the evidence of Kapur Nirala, P.W.3, Gendumani Miri, P.W.4 and Nand Kumar, P.W.5 clearly established that marriage was solemnized between the parties according to Hindu customs by performing all rituals and the Courts'below have relied upon the said evidence to come to the conclusion regarding valid marriage. Lastly, it is submitted that the instant petition has been filed after four years of the date of passing order by the Revisional Court. 5. The finding of valid marriage between the parties is founded on examination of evidence led by the respondent/wife. The witnesses have clearly deposed regarding solemnization of marriage according to Hindu customs, which has remained unrebutted. The evidence of the petitioner has not been found to be reliable and the same has been disbelieved on the basis of evidence led by the respondent/wife. The aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the Magistrate has been affirmed by the Revisional Court also. 6. The proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are summary proceedings. The exercise, which has been undertaken by the learned Magistrate before coming to the conclusion regarding existence of marriage, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. There is ovenrvhelmingevidence on record to sustain finding of marriage. Therefore, i do not find any illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the Courts below. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. s ./’ f Sd/- ‘1 Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge W5.