1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 148/2003 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICAION 1417/2009 Satish s/o Vitthal Gaikwad, Age : 24 years, Occu. Education, R/o Javalka Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad. ...Petitioner. Versus Sakhubai Satish Gaikwad, Sakhubai d/o Rajaram Khandagale, Age : 18 years, Occ. Household, R/o Tandulwadi Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad. ...Respondent. Shri S.B. Talekar, Advocate for petitioner. Smt. Ranjana Reddy, Advocate for respondent sole. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 5th October, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1 Heard. 2 This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned II Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad dated 04/03/2003, granting maintenance to the respondent No.1 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.. 3 The respondents on 30/06/2000 had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Against the applicant, for getting maintenance. The applicant opposed the application denying the marriage itself. 4 In view of this peculiar defence, the parties were required 2 to adduce evidence before the Court below. The respondent No.1 adduced ample evidence to prove that wedding ceremony took place between the parties at certain temple of village Javalka Tq. Washi Dist. Osmanabad. She also stated on oath that after her marriage with the applicant, she could stay with him for about two months but thereafter, on account of his harassment, she was compelled to leave him. She further stated that she was unable to maintain herself whereas the applicant according to her has handsome income from his agriculture land. 5 The applicant also led evidence to rebut the respondent No.1’s evidence. He mostly led evidence in the negative form. His witnesses stated that they had no occasion to attend wedding ceremony of the parties at the particular temple etc. The learned Magistrate disbelieved the respondent No.1’s case saying that her evidence on the point of marriage was doubtful. He has not recorded any reasons whatsoever for arriving at that conclusion. In the revisional Court, the learned Adhoc Additional Judge however reversed the finding saying that there is ample evidence on record to prove the wedding. 6 The learned advocate appearing for the applicant assailed this finding. He said that admittedly there is no documentary evidence on record to prove that the parties got married at any particular date at that particular temple in presence of a particular priest. He also mentions that the witnesses including the respondent No.1 who tried to prove the factum of marriage, could not give exact date of marriage. Although the date of wedding has not come on record but the most important witness examined by the respondent No.1 was the priest who presided over this ceremony. He categorically stated that he got the parties married as per Hindu rites. 3 The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge rightly observed, that there is no need of strict proof of marriage when an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is decided. However, in this case, a strong oral evidence has come on record to prove the wedding between the parties and I think in this case at least no further evidence to prove the wedding is required. The parties admittedly are villagers and are not highly educated. In villages, the marriages are not registered and if the marriage is not registered and if no documentary proof is left behind and the parties subsequently may not be able to remember the exact date of wedding. The learned Additional Sessions judge also rightly came to a conclusion that from the deposition of the applicant himself, it is clear that he was acquainted with the respondent No.1 and her family members. He was on visiting terms with them and so the case of the respondent No.1 that marriage took place between the parties can not be disbelieved. 7 The learned advocate appearing for the applicant then mentioned that the respondent No.1 has failed to give details of harassment meted out to her. I am afraid, this is not factually correct. The respondent No.1 in her deposition stated that after he marriage with the applicant, she started cohabiting and for two months, there were no problems between spouses. She said, thereafter the applicant started ill-treating her over demands of gold ring etc.. She also stated that the applicant used to beat her and she said that ultimately he drove her out of his house. She then said that she thereafter came to her parents’ house. She further stated that her parents then went to the applicant’s house to persuade him to accept his wife but in vain. These particulars in respect of harassment are sufficient to draw a conclusion that there occurred harassment to the respondent No.1. Had there been no harassment, she had no reason 4 to leave her husband. 8 The third submission made by the applicant’s advocate is that on the date when the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was made in the year 2000, respondent No.1 was not even 18 years old. She was merely 15 or 16 years old. He pointed out that there is evidence on record to show that the date of birth of the respondent No.1 is 12th January, 1985. He said, in view of this, neither the marriage between the parties was valid nor the respondent No.1 could have maintained the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. independently without filing it through her guardian. Both these objections are rightly rejected by the Court below. If the applicant wants to challenge the validity of the marriage, he would be able to file a marriage petition to get decree of nullity of marriage under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. When the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was made by respondent No.1, she categorically stated in her application that her age is more than 18 years and therefore, she could maintain the application. In view of this, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and order. ORDER a) Writ petition stands dismissed. b) In view of this, amount deposited by the applicant in the lower Court shall be handed over to the respondent No.2 Sakhubai. c) Criminal application No. 1417/2009 disposed of. A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ts k/ok