IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 102 of 2004. Reserved on : 31-7-2008. Date of Decision:12. 08.2008. _______________________________________________________ Bidhi Chand. . Petitioner. Versus Smt. Kanta Devi. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?.. Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents. Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the orders of maintenance passed in favour of the respondent-wife by both the courts below. The admitted facts of the case which emerges from the evidence on record are :- a) The petitioner was a audit officer in the Cooperative Society and is now retiree. His previous wife had died on 24.9.1976 and his children from the previous wife are adult. His two daughters and a son were married and living separately. One son was unmarried. b) The respondent Kanta Devi is also widower. She was residing along with her four children in village Jasoh of her previous husband Dharam Chand who died on 17.11.1997. c) Both the parties herein were looking for a spouse so that they could be looked after and applied for the registration of the marriage duly supported by the affidavits. According to the respondent Kanta Devi, petitioner Bidhi Chand Whether the reporters of the local newspapers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - married to her on 24-9-1999. Both the parties lived together as husband and wife for about three months. Thereafter the petitioner-husband neglected and refused to maintain her and did not provide necessities of life. Though the petitioner herein denied the marriage but the learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, awarded an amount of rupees 500/- per month to the respondent-wife with effect from the date of petition in case No. 33 of 2001 decided on 21-10-2003. She did not feel satisfied, as such filed the revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge. According to her, she could not survive with this meager amount and claimed rupees 3000/- per month. Learned Sessions Judge re-examined the record and came to the conclusion that the respondent-wife is a legally wedded wife of the petitioner and since she was refused and neglected to maintain therefore, enhanced the amount from rupees 500/- to rupees 1000/- per month. In the instant petition, the petitioner-husband has challenged the order of courts below and contended that there was no marriage between them, therefore the orders of maintenance are highly unjust, illegal and arbitrary and further that the affidavits Exhibit PW3/A and PW3/B showing the marriage inter-se parties were inadmissible and not in conformity with the Evidence Act further the copies of affidavits Exhibit PW2/A and B and copy of challan form Exhibit PW3/C were not certified copies which could not have been taken into consideration. Thus there was no justification to grant the maintenance to the tune of rupees 500/- and further to enhance it to rupees 1000/-, P.M. by the court of Sessions. Shri Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner developed his arguments on the above lines and contended that the custom for solemnizing the said marriage was neither pleaded nor proved, therefore there was no question of paying any maintenance to the respondent. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Shri Sanjeev Sood has supported the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below. - 3 - I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record. There are concurrent findings of fact qua the marriage inter-se the parties by the courts below. The respondent-wife had also moved an application Exhibit PW3/B after her marriage with the petitioner, before Roshni Devi Pradhan of her Panchayat seeking permission to take her all luggage from village Jasoh to the place of petitioner-husband which was permitted as per the note appended on the said application and both of them are also given in writing Exhibit PW3/A and B on the stamp paper about their marriage. This fact has been admitted and proved by PW3 Roshni Devi. According to Roshni Devi Pradhan, she had advised Bidhi Chand petitioner and Kanta Devi respondent to get their marriage registered. The joint photograph of the parties pasted on it further testifies this fact. Roshani Devi aforesaid testified on oath that both the parties accepted each other as husband and wife, thereafter, they started living together at Hamirpur at the place of petitioner-husband. PW2 Roop Lal, Ahlmed in the office of S.D.M. Barsar, stated that Bidhi Chand and Kanta Devi had moved an application for registering their marriage before the S.D.M who was also Marriage officer which was registered as Case No. 13 of 2000. Both the parties had supported this fact by their separate affidavits Exhibit PW2/A and PW2/B for registering their marriage which were proved by him to be correct according to the original brought by him. He further stated that both the parties were required to deposit the marriage registration fee. A challan form Exhibit PW2/C was also filled in by the petitioner. Thereafter, the case was repeatedly adjourned for various dates but none appeared. Therefore, their application for registering their marriage was dismissed for want of their presence. The petitioner Bidhi Chand as RW1 has admitted in his cross- examination, this fact that he had applied for their registration of marriage. He also admitted his signatures on the affidavit Exhibit PW2/B which was presented by him before the Sub Divisional Magistrate a. He further specifically - 4 - admitted that he had brought the respondent-wife to his place. It is also pertinent to note that the fact of their marriage is corroborated by Parkash Chand, the real brother of Bidhi Chand. He has testified on oath that the petitioner and respondent herein married each other as per the custom and both remained together as husband and wife for about 7/8 months. In fact, the validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be determined on the basis of evidence on record by the parties. The standard of proof of marriage in such proceedings is not as strict as required in a trial of the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. If the claimant in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure succeeds in showing that she and her husband lived together as husband and wife, the Court can presume that they are legally married spouses and it is not necessary to further probe the matter in the summary proceedings of this nature (Please see: Dwarika Prasad Satpathy –v- Bidyut Prava Dixit and another, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3348. Thus, from the above facts, the marriage inter-se the parties stands proved. Both lived together as husband and wife. The respondent-wife has specifically pleaded in her petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that she was married to the petitioner on 24.9.1999 and lived together as husband and wife. The petitioner-husband has also admitted this fact in so many words as RW1 before the trial Court which is further corroborated by his brother Parkash Chand. On the strength of the above evidence, both the Courts felt satisfied with regard to the marriage inter-se the parties and rightly so. Once it is established that both the parties are husband and wife, in the instant case, the neglect and refusal is writ large on the part of husband when he has denied the marriage with the respondent wife. Thus she is entitled to claim maintenance. PW4 Parkash Chand, has stated that the petitioner retired as an Audit officer from Cooperative Society and is getting pension to the tune of rupees - 5 - 4000/- per month. The respondent-wife has claimed rupees 3000/- per month as maintenance. She also stated that she after her marriage with the present petitioner brought the entire articles of her late husband with her as also stated by PW3 Roshni Devi and both started living together at Hamirpur. The revisional Court took note of this fact and observed that the respondent wife was left with no articles and was rendered in lurch and she did not have any independent source of income. Whereas the statement of respondent wife was not disputed that the petitioner was getting pension at the rate of rupees 7000/- per month. Therefore, keeping in view these facts it was held that Rs.500/- per month was not sufficient and rightly enhanced the amount to Rs.1,000/- per month which in my opinion is not excessive to lead a normal and respectable life. Thus, I do not find any jurisdictional error or abuse of the process in the orders of the courts below. Accordingly the present petition is dismissed. (Surinder Singh) Judge. August 12 , 2008. (bm)