HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No.32 of 2006 LICANT: Smt. Chanda Bai, W/o Chhannu Prasad Tiwari; aged about 60 years; R/o Village Chandeni; Tahsil Khairagarh (C-G.), Distt. Rajnandgaon. Versus Chhannu Prasad Tiwari; S/o Shri Hem Nath Tiwari; aged about 66 years; R/o Village Chandeni; Tahsil Khairagarh; Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) a {Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1 973} NON—APPLICANT: Present: Mr. R.N. Jha, counsel for the petitioner‘ None present for the respondent, though served Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (25-9'2009) 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is for quashment of the i _ order dated 2—8—2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,~ Khairagarh in Criminal Revision No.149/2005, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has reversed the order awarding maintenance dated 12—7-2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh in Misc. Criminal Case No.65/2001. 2. Order impugned is challenged on the ground that the Court below has not considered the evidence including admission of the respondent relating to marriage of the respondent with the petitioner and thereby committed illegality, and to secure the ends of justice, the order impugned is required to be quashed. 3. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impUgned as also the record ofthe Courts below. APP earned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was married , K to th‘e respondent, they lived together for 25-30 years and five chiidren were born out of the wedlo’ck of the petitioner & the respondent. After 2002, the respondent ousted the petitioner and the petitioner fiied application for maintenance before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh has awarded maintenance of Rs.1,000/— per month to the petitioner, but the same was reversed by the revisional Court vide the ‘ order impugned. Learned counsel further submits that the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner & the respondent are sufficient for _ I drawing inference that the petitioner & the respondent are legally wedded wife & husband. . The evidence of petitioner Chanda Bai (AW-1), Bhagat Prasad (AW-2) & Top Singh (AW-3) reveals that the petitioner was marriage with the respondent, they lived together for long time and five children were born ’ out of their wedlock. The respondent herein had also adduced his evidence and the evidence of Mannulal & Adheen. Mannulal & Adheen have also admitted that the petitioner & the respondent lived together as husband & wife for 30—40 years and they are having five children The respondent has specifically admitted in para 6 of his cross—examination 'the fact of husband ‘& wife relation, birth of five children and living with the petitioner as husband for about 30-40 years, but he has deposed that I ' ‘ Mongra Bai is his first wife. The respondent has not examined Mongra Bai or has not adduced any evidence to show the lawful marriage of the respondent with Mongra Bai. . In case of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner is required to prove lawful marriage, but strict proof of performance of all : essential rituals is not necessary. Living together for long time is even E‘MW’SUfticient for drawing inference of lawful marriage. in the present case, admission of the respondent is sufficient for drawing inference that the petitioner & the respondent are legally wedded wife & husband. The Court below has not considered the material evidence and admission of the respondent and thereby committed iliegaiity. The order impugned is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. 7. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order impugned is hereby set aside. The order dated. 12-7—2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh in Misc. Criminal Case No.65/2001 awarding maintenance of Rs.1,000/— per month to the petitioner is hereby restored. —- ‘xi \‘ \>. Q