IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 53 of 2002 Date of decision: November 24, 2008 Shri Bhagwan Dass Petitioner Versus Smt. Jai Lakshmi Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the petitioners: Mr. V.S.Chauhan, Advocate For the respondent Mr.Vijander Katoch, Advocate, vice Mr.Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) In case No.31-4 of 2000, the learned trial court dismissed the application of respondent-wife, which was assailed by her in Cr. Revision No.5 of 2001, before the learned Sessions Judge, who set aside the order of the learned trial court and granted maintenance to the respondent-wife at the rate of Rs.200/- per month with effect from 15.1.2001. The petitioner- husband filed a revision petition in this court challenging the order of maintenance, granted by the learned Sessions Judge, on the ground that the impugned order lacks the cogent and justifiable reasons and a detailed inquiry was not conducted with 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.yes 2 respect to the fact that whether the respondent-wife was a legally wedded wife, as per Law. Shri Virender Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehementally argued that the petitioner-husband has denied the marriage with the respondent and the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of the parties in right perspective. Contra, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order of maintenance. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent-wife had filed an application, seeking maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned trial court, pleading that she was married to the petitioner-husband in the month of October,1994 according to Hindu rites and from this wedlock she gave birth to a child, named Rameshwar Singh, who is aged about 5 years, who is living with the petitioner-husband. She alleged that the petitioner- husband was used to consume liquor and had been maltreating her. Thus she was compelled to leave the matrimonial house on 5.10.1999. In the month of November, 1999 her husband visited the house of his in-laws and threatened her with dire consequences. In the reply the petitioner-husband contended that the respondent herein had misled and developed illicit relations with him. She was already married to Muni Lal r/o in Kashmir where she had delivered a child. Thereafter, she solemnized another marriage in Pangi District Kinnaur, where she remained for about three months. He denied ever having married her and kept as wife. According to him she was his concubine. 3 To prove her case respondent stepped into the witness box and substantiated her version. However, in the cross-examination she admitted that she was married to one Muni Lal resident of village Kashmir. From this wedlock, she gave birth to a daughter named Trishali. She remained with him for 3-4 years, thereafter she dissolved her marriage as per custom. A fatal suggestion was given to her in her cross-examination that she had left his house without consent of the petitioner-husband. She denied that she had been living in adultery with one Birma Chand husband of RW-2. PW2 is a close relation of the petitioner Bhagwan Dass. He stated that respondent is his wife and not a keep whereas petitioner as RW1 clearly admitted that he had married her in village Gram Panchayat Sarpara. He also stated that when the respondent was doing labour work in his village, he developed illicit relations with her. According to him, she left her child with him and abandoned his house. He also admitted that she lived with him for about three years. RW-2 Shyama Bhagti stated that respondent was living with her husband in adultery. However, in the cross-examination it is disputed that she is wife of Birma Chand nor she could produce any document to this effect. From the above evidence, it transpires that the petitioner has made an attempt to prove that she was not his legally wedded wife, if it is proved otherwise then his alternative defence is that she is not entitled to get any maintenance as she was leading an adulterous life. The learned Sessions Judge did not agree with the defence taken thus he rightly reversed the findings of the learned trial court as there is a clear evidence on record in the form of admission by the 4 petitioner-husband that she had solemnized the marriage with the respondent-wife and she remained with him for 3 years and left her child with him. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent could not prove her marriage in accordance with law is worth rejecting, otherwise also the proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are summary in nature and strict proof of marriage is not required. She has categorically stated that earlier marriage with Muni Lal stood dissolved as per the custom and it was only thereafter that she married the petitioner which has been admitted by him in so many words. The legal position stands already explained by the Apex Court in Dwarika Prasad case (AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3348) and also by this Court in Bidhi Chand versus Smt.Kanta Devi (Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 1234. Precisely, it is held therein that the validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceedings, under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be determined on the basis of the evidence on record by the parties. The standard of proof of marriage in such proceeding is not as strict as required in a trial of the offence under section 494 IPC If the claimant in such proceedings succeeds in showing that she and her husband lived together as husband and wife, the court can presume that they are legally wedded spouses and it is not necessary to further probe the matter in the summary proceedings of this nature. Therefore, in the instant case there is enough evidence to conclude that the parties herein are the husband and wife and factum of adultery, which is sought to be proved by RW2 stands not proved. It was rightly rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. The respondent could not 5 be said to be living in adultery in absence of a cogent evidence on record. Neglect and refusal to pay the maintenance by the petitioner is countenanced in his pleadings as well as in his statement more specifically when he has denied the relationship of husband and wife. Although he has half heartedly admitted this relationship but styled her as his keep, having resided with him for 3 years. Since the respondent is held as his wife and she is proved to be unable to maintain herself as having no source of income, she was rightly held entitled for maintenance by the ;earned Sessions Judge. I find no illegality in the impugned order, therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. November 24, 2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D)