IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 RPFC.No. 40 of 2008() --------------------- MC.102/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR .................... : REVN. PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------- JOHN JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, VALIYAPARAMBU VEEDU, CHELAKOMBU KARA, NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS & STATE -------------------------------- 1. SHINY MATHEW, ATTUPURATHU VEEDU, PARAMPUZHA KARA, PERUMBAIKADU VILLAGE. 2. ANIRACHEL JOHN (MINOR), ATTUPURATHU VEEDU, PARAMPUZHA KARA, PERUMBAIKADU VILLAGE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ R.P.F.(C).No.40 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C under which the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance to the claimants, allegedly his wife and admittedly his son. 2. Co-habitation as husband and wife is admitted. That a child was born in such relationship is also admitted. The petitioner offered to maintain the 1st claimant on condition that she resumes co-habitation with him. Of course, simultaneously and parallely he raised a contention that the woman was unchaste. She relied on Exhibit-A1 marriage certificate issued by the Church authorities to prove that a valid marriage had taken place. According to the petitioner though they were living as husband and wife and a child was born in the relationship and though he had offered to maintain her on condition that she lives with him as a wife, he is not liable to pay maintenance for the reason that no valid marriage is there. 3. The 1st claimant wife examined herself as PW1. She proved Exts.A1 to A3. Exhibit-A1 as stated earlier is the marriage certificate to prove that the marriage was solemnized between R.P.F.(C).No.40 of 2008 2 the petitioner and the 1st claimant on 09.09.99. Exts.A2 and A3 are documents to show that the claimant/wife was afflicted with tuberculosis. 4. The petitioner examined himself as CPW1. He examined a non entity from the local church in an attempt to prove Ext.X1. Exhibit-X1 is said to be a marriage register maintained in the church. CPW2 was examined and Exhibit-X1 was produced in an attempt to show that Exhibit-A1 marriage is not seen entered in the marriage register Exhibit-X1. 5. The learned Judge of the Family Court after considering all the relevant inputs found it safe to accept and act upon the oral evidence of PW1 about the existence of a valid marriage. Her evidence read along with the stand taken by the petitioner as also Exhibit-A1 led the learned Judge to come to a conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to satisfy the court about marriage in a proceedings under Section 125Cr.P.C. 6. Coming to the quantum of maintenance, the learned Judge took the view that an amount of Rs.3,00/- per mensem to the wife and child would be the sufficient amount. I shudder on the reasonableness of the said direction. In any case it is not necessary for me to go into that question in the revision petition. R.P.F.(C).No.40 of 2008 3 If and when the claimant wife comes in a revision petition, that question can be considered in that revision petition. 7. It is by now trite that in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C, it is not necessary to prove marriage to the hilt as would be necessary in a matrimonial proceedings or in criminal proceedings for prosecution for the offence of bigamy. The classic statement of the law that the evidence of persons who have seen the spouses living together as husband and wife would be sufficient evidence of marriage in a proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C must always be remembered. 8. We have the evidence of PW1 about the marriage between her and CPW1. We have Exhibit-A1 marriage certificate issued by the church proved of course only through PW1. CPW1 in evidence admitted that the said certificate is signed by a superior church functionary who is related to him and who has no motive or animus whatsoever against him. We do also have the evidence of the petitioner as CPW1 that he is willing to maintain the 1st claimant on condition that she resides with him. I am satisfied that the materials presently available are eminently sufficient to establish a marriage as required in a proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. R.P.F.(C).No.40 of 2008 4 9. A contention is built on Exhibit-X1 and the oral evidence of CPW2. The learned Judge of the Family Court dealt with the question in detail. CPW2 was a non entity in the church who had no authority to represent church and to tender evidence on behalf of the church. The petitioner who has not chosen to examine his relative who had admittedly signed Exhibit-A1 cannot be permitted to create doubt or confusion in the mind of the court with the help of evidence of CPW2 and Exhibit-X1. CPW2 even on his own showing is only a peon in the church, who was not authorized by anyone to represent the church to tender evidence or to produce Exhibit-X1. 10. No other contentions are raised. I am satisfied that this revision petition only deserves to be dismissed. I do the same. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-