Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 574 (ORI)

SANATAN BEHERA v. ANJALI BEHERA

2002-09-04

P.K.TRIPATHY

body2002
JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - The opposite parties in this revision filed an application u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure registered as Criminal Proceeding No 55 of 1994 in the Court of Judge Family Court. Cuttack. They claimed that opposite party No. 1 and 2 are respectively wife and minor son of the petitioner. It is stated in the application u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure that opposite party No. 1 married to the petitioner in Maa Cuttack Chandi' temple at Cuttack in the month of December. 1991 and that marriage was performed by exchange of garlands in presence of the 'Purohit' (priest) and one 'Panda' ('Pujak') of the said temple. It is their further case that opposite party No. 1 and the petitioner resided in as rented house at Mangalabag (a locality in Cuttack Town) where the marriage was consummated and they were blessed with a child, i.e. opposite party No. 2. According to the Birth Certificate Ext. 2. opposite party No. 2 was born on 22.1.1993. It is alleged by the opposite parties that after the pregnancy of opposite party No. 1, petitioner extended both physical and mental cruelty and tortured her in pursuance to his demand of a cash of Rs. 20.000/- (twenty thousand) towards dowry. Since her father was dead and one of the brother was invalid, therefore, she could not pay the said amount. Ultimately, on 1st October. 1992. as alleged, petitioner drove her out from the rented house and she met with one gentleman named Section Gopinathan on 1.10.1992 and the said gentleman sent her to her parents' house on 2.10.1992. Because of the intervention of her brother and other gentleman of the Cuttack locality she again started staying with the petitioner from 5.10.1992 but she was again driven out on 10.12.1992. Opposite party No. 1 lodged F.I.R at the Mangalabag Police-Station or. 11.10.1992 and also approached different authorities like D.I.G of Police, H.A. & D.D. Member-Secretary of the Legal Aid and Advice Board, and when she did not get any result then she filed the application for maintenance. She has stated that by the date of filing of the application u/s 125, Cr. P.C she was living in her parents' house in a destitute condition. She stated that petitioner as an Advocate of Cuttack Bar has a monthly earning of Rs. 3000/- and he should provide maintenance of Rs. She has stated that by the date of filing of the application u/s 125, Cr. P.C she was living in her parents' house in a destitute condition. She stated that petitioner as an Advocate of Cuttack Bar has a monthly earning of Rs. 3000/- and he should provide maintenance of Rs. 500/- to opposite party No. 1 and Rs. 300/- to opposite party No. 2. 2. In this written statement petitioner disowned the relationship with opposite party No. 1 and also paternity of opposite party No. 2. While denying to the allegation made in the application u/s 125 Cr. P.C, petitioner specifically advanced the plea that on 4th March, 1991 he was married to one Lilena Rani Pradhan, daughter of Jagannath Pradhan (O.P.W. No. 4) of Cuttack and leading a happy conjugal life with her. He has further stated that opposite party No. 1 being a co-villager to him was found to be a lady of loose character and as she conceived and delivered a child in her spinsterhood, a village meeting was convened at the instance of the petitioners family to ex communicate or to drive her out from the village and since the petitioner was taking active part in that meeting, therefore, a false case has been foisted against him by opposite party No. 1. He has further stated that father of opposite party No. 1 died in the year 1987, her mother is getting family pension, her both the brother are having sufficient income and. apart from that, opposite party No. 1 having taken a vocational training, is a skilled tailor and earns about Rs. 1500/- per month from such avocation. He has stated that though he is a practising Advocate of the local Bar Cuttack but he joined the Bar in March, 1992 and he has no sufficient income from the profession even to meet his requirements in day-today life. He has further stated that father of opposite party No. 1 was a Government servant and was in occupation of a Government quarter at Ranihat (Anr. locality in Cuttack Townl and opposite party No. 1 was staying with her father at Cuttack since 1982. and that after retirement of her father she returned to her native village but one year after she came and stayed in the quarter of her father's colleague. locality in Cuttack Townl and opposite party No. 1 was staying with her father at Cuttack since 1982. and that after retirement of her father she returned to her native village but one year after she came and stayed in the quarter of her father's colleague. He has also narrated aboul the questionable character of opposite party No. 1 in the house of her father's friend Petitioners claim before the lower Court was to dismiss the application u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. In the Court below both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective cases. Opposite party No. 1 examined herself as P.W. 1. Besides that, she examined P.W. Nos. 2 and 3 as the witnesses to the marriage in 'Cuttack Chandi" temple and P.W. 4 as the priest who performed the marriage. Petitioner examined himself as O.P.W. 6. He examined the father of Lilenarani Pradhan as O.P.W. No. 4 to prove that he married to that girl on 4.3.1991. He has also examined O.P.W. Nos. 1 and 2 to prove that petitioner has married to said Lilenarani and not to opposite party No. 1. He also examined O.P.W. No. 3, a priest of 'Cuttack Chandi' temple, who, according to the opp party No. 1's case was present at the time of her marriage. By that witness he wanted to prove no marriage as alleged by the opposite party No. 1 So far as documentary evidence is concerned opposite party No. 1 relied on the Discharge certificate granted in her favour by the Medical Collage Hospital after her delivery. That discharge certificate dated 27.1.1993 has been marked Ext. 1. She has also relied on the Birth Certificate of opposite party No. 2 granted by the Registrar, Birth & Deaths. Cuttack Municipality on 23.2.1995 in proof of birth of opposite party No. 2 and he having been described as son of the petitioner. Similarly, petitioner also relied on some documents and they have been marked Ext. A to E. Out of that. Ext. A and 8 are respectively relevant entries in respective Registers relating to receipt of a tailoring machine and taking trailing in a tailoring institute at Cuttack by opposite party No. 1. describing herself as art unmarried woman. Ext C is a copy of invitation card relating to marriage of the petitioner with Lilenarani Pradhan on 4th March, 1991. Exts. Ext. A and 8 are respectively relevant entries in respective Registers relating to receipt of a tailoring machine and taking trailing in a tailoring institute at Cuttack by opposite party No. 1. describing herself as art unmarried woman. Ext C is a copy of invitation card relating to marriage of the petitioner with Lilenarani Pradhan on 4th March, 1991. Exts. E and D are respectively two water lists of village Govindpur relating to the year 1993 and 1995, in which opp. party No. 1 has been described water along with the other family members of her parents family and there she has been described as She daughter of her father and not as the wife of the petitioner. 4. The Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, after perusing and assessing the evidence on record, declared the opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively as the wife and the son of the petitioner, disbelieving the plea of the petitioner relating to his marriage with Lilenarani on the ground that petitioner did not examine the priest who negotiated and performed marriage of the petitioner with Lilenarani Pradhan. He also recorded a finding that evidence of P.W. 1 and her witness prove the relationship of husband and wife between the parties and ill-treatment because of demand of dowry and accordingly he granted maintenance 9 Rs. 300/- to each of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 making that payable from the date of filing of the application u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that evidence on record runs contrary to the finding recorded by the learned Judge. Family Court, Cuttack. In that connection, he invites attention of this Court to the evidence adduced by both the parties and the merits and demerits in such evidence. He argues that on a thorough reading of the evidence of both the sides, it is clear that opposite party No. 1 has neither proved her marriage with the petitioner nor his status as the father of opposite party No. 2 and under such circumstance relief of maintenance could not have been granted to opposite party members. He argues that on a thorough reading of the evidence of both the sides, it is clear that opposite party No. 1 has neither proved her marriage with the petitioner nor his status as the father of opposite party No. 2 and under such circumstance relief of maintenance could not have been granted to opposite party members. He also argues that when the family Court not only has failed to appreciate but also ignored to take note of existing evidence on record, thus the finding of the Court below suffers both from illegality and perversity and therefore this Court should peruse the evidence to decide the dispute. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the opposite party argues that law and equity always favour a woman seeking redressal from the Court and. therefore, this Court should not be too technical or indifferent while adjudicating a dispute of the present nature. He further argues that evidence which the opposite party has laid, both oral and documentary, clearly proves and, if not strictly then it probablises a marital status between them and the opposite party No. 2 as the child out of that wedlock and therefore, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the petitioner the impugned order should not be interfered with. He further argues that evidence adduced by the petitioner is not acceptable because of no credibility attached to that and besides that due to interestedness of such witnesses. At the same time, he argues that this Court being exercising the revisional jurisdiction, it should not reassess the evidence on record and not to interfere with the impugned judgment when no illegality is attached to it. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the revision. 7. Since the opposite party opposed to re-assessment of evidence when the petitioner insists for the same, this Court feels that position of law in that respect should be clearly indicated. This Court exercises revisional jurisdiction as per the provision in Section 401 read with Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure Sub-section (1) of Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, inter alia, authorises the revisional Court to exercise the power of an appellate Court as provided u/s 386, Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court exercises revisional jurisdiction as per the provision in Section 401 read with Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure Sub-section (1) of Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, inter alia, authorises the revisional Court to exercise the power of an appellate Court as provided u/s 386, Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, while considering correctness legality and propriety of any finding from the impugned judgment, revisional Court is not prohibited from interfering with the factual findings, if found to be perverse or illegal, in other words, while considering correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order revisibnal Court is authorised and competent to peruse the evidence. While doing so revisional Court should not disturb the finding based on evidence unless it finds lack of correctness, legality or propriety in such factual ' finding. So revisional Court should not interfere with the factual finding unless above noted contingency exists on record. 8. On perusal of record this Court finds the fact and evidence in the following manner. Plea of an arranged marriage is found from following quoted averments in the application u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. That, sometime in the month of December, 1931 the opp. party along with relations of the parties brought th6 petitioner to Cuttack to solemnise the marriage of the petitioner No. 1 with the said opp.party. 4. That, accordingly with consent of both the parties they went to Cuttack Chandi Temple and Perform the said marriage by way of exchanging garlands in presence of the Purohit and one Panda of the said Temple. She has not stated about any love affair between them or intimacy prior to the date of marriage Therefore, the case has to be appreciated in that context. Unfortunately the Family Court did not remain alive to that circumstance while adjudicating the dispute. 9. Opposite party No. 1 has neither stated in her application nor explain so in her evidence as to why the marriage was to be performed in "Cuttack Chandi" Temple when both the parties belong to same village (when it is a case of arranged marriage). Be that as it may, in her evidence (examination-in-chief) she stated that: She married to opp. party in December. 1991 according to Hindu rites and customs by exchange of garlands at Cuttack Chandi Temple. In the cross-examination the stated that: 7. Many persons (our relations) have married in the temple. Be that as it may, in her evidence (examination-in-chief) she stated that: She married to opp. party in December. 1991 according to Hindu rites and customs by exchange of garlands at Cuttack Chandi Temple. In the cross-examination the stated that: 7. Many persons (our relations) have married in the temple. Again says none of my relations have performed their marriage in the temple. P.W.2, a co-villager, has stated in his deposition that: The marriage was solemnised through exchange of Garlands in Cuttack Chandi temple. in his examination-in-chief he further stated that brothers of opposite party No. 1 were present in that marriage and none except the brother-in-law (sister's husband) of the petitioner was present in that marriage and therefore on the invitation of the petitioner he came and witnessed that marriage. He further stated that the parents and relations of the opposite party were not approving the said marriage and. as such. I was present. P.W 3. a resident of Cuttack town, deposed that: She witnessed the marriage being invited by the petitioner No. 1. In her examination-in-chief she has stated that: I attended their marriage. The mother and brother of the petitioner and father and Bhinoi of the OP. attended the said marriage. in her cross-examination she stated that: By the time the parties married, the O.P. was an advocate. P.W. 4 stated in his examination-in-chief that: On being called as a priest by the opp. party he performed the marriage. ceremony in Chandi temple at 5 P.M. He has further stated that: The paternal uncles of the parties were present. A barber of Cuttack was present. I cannot say his name. Pujak Narayan Panda of Chandi tample was present at the time of marriage. Other relevant portion of his evidence is: Homa and Saptapadi were performed during the marriage of the parties. In cross-examination he stated that: I performed the marriage as per BIHARI KARMAKANDA. 3. I do not know Saptapadi Mantra. Hastaganthi is one of he ceremonies of a marriage as per Bihari Karmakanda. I had no acquaintance with the relations of the parties. The marriage was completed at 8. P.M. Another Brahmin was present during the marriage of the parties. The Brahmin is residing in the Chandi temple premises. 10. The aforesaid is the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the opposite party No 1 relating to performance of marriage. I had no acquaintance with the relations of the parties. The marriage was completed at 8. P.M. Another Brahmin was present during the marriage of the parties. The Brahmin is residing in the Chandi temple premises. 10. The aforesaid is the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the opposite party No 1 relating to performance of marriage. In that context the evidence of petitioner is a plea of denial and also stated that he married to one Lilenarani on 4th March. 1991. i.e., about nine months before the alleged marriage with petitioner No. 1. Whether or not the opposite party proves his marriage with said Lilenarani Pradhan. petitioner No 1 is required to prove her status as the wife if she is to succeed in her claim for maintenance. Petitioner examined Naryan Panda as O.P.W. 5. He is that Pujak who according to the case of the opposite party No. 1 was present at the time of marriage in Cuttack Chandi Temple and that has also been stated by some witnesses from her side (as quoted in preceding paragraph). In his evidence said Pujaka from Cuttack Chandi Temple has stated that: 1. I do not know the petitioner. I know the OP. since last 2 to 3 months. To my knowledge the parties were never married in Cuttack Chandi Temple in my presence & there was never performed by any outsider priest in my presence. 2. Marriages are performed inside Cuttack Chandi temple campus. Homa and Saptapadis are the ceremonies are not observed. Ordinarily marriages are solemnised through exchange of garlands. Outsiders priests are not permitted to perform marriages inside the temple premises even marriages are performed without the help of priest through exchange of garlands. 3. I do not know Pradeep Kr. Panda (Pujak). Cross ex-exanimation 4. xx xx xx xx I closely knew the O.P. as because he was chit-chatting with us whenever he visits the temple. 11. It appears from the above noted oral evidence adduced by the parties (hat opposite party No. I is not consistent through the evidence of her witnesses about the manner in which the marriage was performed and persons who were present at the time of such marriage inside the Chandi Temple. The above noted evidence-is self explanatory about the discrepancies. 11. It appears from the above noted oral evidence adduced by the parties (hat opposite party No. I is not consistent through the evidence of her witnesses about the manner in which the marriage was performed and persons who were present at the time of such marriage inside the Chandi Temple. The above noted evidence-is self explanatory about the discrepancies. On that score while learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that such contradictions were omitted to be considered by the Family Court and therefore the finding is perverse, learned Counsel for the opposite party argues that in view of the settled position of law in the cases of Smt. Hatna Pradhan v. Abhi Pradhan 63 (1987) CLT 628 Mina Kumari Dei v. Sahadev Mallik. 64 (1987) CLT 3B0 Jemamani Das alias Panda Vs. Umesh Chandra Panda, Naba Chandra Jena v. State of Orissa and Anr. 81 19961 CLT 629; Sarat Chandra Pattnaik v. Binodini Pattnaik (1999) 16 OCR 192, and Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Anr. AIR 199 SC 3348 : AIR SCW 3844. a woman claiming maintenance shall not be asked to approve the marital status by proof of such fact to the hilt, non-prove of the rituals which are followed is not sufficient of discard the claim of status in a proceeding us 125 Code of Criminal Procedure and even residing together as husband and wife and accepted as such by the society is sufficient to give the opposite part No. 1 status of wife so as to pursue her remedy u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that when the judicial precedents stands at that, the aforesaid shortcomings in the evidence from the side of the petitioner does not render her disentitled to claim for maintenance. 12. A case is decided on the basis of its own facts and evidence and the ratio is to be followed from the cited decision relating to legal principle if the same is applicable. Prom the decisions placed out of the list of citations given by the parties. 12. A case is decided on the basis of its own facts and evidence and the ratio is to be followed from the cited decision relating to legal principle if the same is applicable. Prom the decisions placed out of the list of citations given by the parties. apex Court and this Court have accepted marital status on the basis of plea advanced and evidence tendered Principles settled in the above noted citations are: (i) When the parties to the proceeding admit the relationship of husband and wife by any sort or form of marriage which was performed, then Court need not insist for a probe into the manner in which such marriage was performed nor to discard the status of marital relationship on the basis of any contradictions in evidence relating to certain ceremonies of marriage. This ratio cannot, be extended to a case where there is a dispute relating to marriage and marital status between the parties. That is so, because the law makes no discrimination so also a Court deciding the legal issue. Justice is precious to both the parties and it has to be delivered as per the provision of law and the accepted norms in the society. (ii) Inter se relationship between the parties if has been adjudicated and decided assertively by any adjudicatory process, then contradictions in evidence relating to factum of marriage may not be a ground for the Court deciding a case u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. to negative the claim of maintenance unless for cogent and satisfactory reason. in other words, in such case normally maintenance should be granted unless the evidence on record requires the Court to record clear finding based on law for disentitling the claim of maintenance. to negative the claim of maintenance unless for cogent and satisfactory reason. in other words, in such case normally maintenance should be granted unless the evidence on record requires the Court to record clear finding based on law for disentitling the claim of maintenance. (iii) When assertion by a woman is relating to a marriage injury forum whatsoever and that is disputed by the opponent, i.e. claimed husband, then in such case Court has to assess the evidence on record in accordance with law and to decided the issue on that basis if that does not come within the aforesaid categories of cases; arid (iv) Even if a marriage is claimed but not proved but the evidence on record sufficiently proves that the man and the woman lived as husband and wits for a considerably long period and they were accepted by the society as husband and wife, then for the purpose of relief u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure the woman be accepted as the wife of the man against whom maintenance is claimed. It is not provided by (he authorities adopting such norm as to whet should be the length of the period of co-living to presume relationship of husband and wife between such man and woman. In that respect length or duration of period cannot be prescribed. It is for the Court to consider the plea and evidence by adopting a pragmatic approach to find out if such living together by the parties has given them the recognition of husband and wife. 13. In the present case, admittedly there is no decree or order of any Court accepting the relationship between the parties. Opposite party No. 1 does not claim her status as the wife of the petitioner on the basis of a joint living with him and the society having accepted her as his wife. On the other hand nor case is that she married to the petitioner through an arranged marriage and that marriage was performed in Chandi Temple by exchange of garlands and thereafter they lived as husband and wife together in some streets of Cuttack town and that has been accepted by the society with respect to their status as husband and wife. This Court has purposefully quoted the relevant evidence relating to the factum of marriage to indicate that such evidence was not considered by the Trial Court and besides that, such evidence runs so inconsistent that the factum of marriage cannot be said to have been proved. Therefore, it is to be seen from the evidence on record if the society has accepted them as husband and wife. In that respect evidence of P.W. No. 3 who is also a tailor master, is weak enough to support her stand in as much as admittedly that witness was not a person residing in the locality where the opposite party No. 1 claimed to have resided with petitioner as wife and husband. She has not stated about her relationship or intimacy with any of the parties. She has also not stated in her evidence that she was family friend or a regular visitor to the house of the petitioner. On the other hand her evidence in paragraph 4 and 5 of her deposition goes to show that she had not much acquaintance ever, with opposite party No. 1 To prove that the parties resided together as husband and wife, it was not necessary for opposite party No. 1 to parade people from the street where the were allegedly residing together. Bui evidence of the house-owner or neighbour would have been of great relevance. At least there should have been something for the Court to make a valid inference about their relationship by co-living if such evidence would have been on record. Any person walking on the street having no prior acquaintance with the parties cannot be considered credible when speaking on relationship. In that respect evidence of P.W. No. 3 is not in conformity with the standard of proof as required u/s 50 road with Section 60 of Indian Evidence Act. For the said reason this Court finds that oral evidence adduced from the side of opposite party No. 1 has not been able to establish the factum of marriage between herself and the opposite party so as to entitle her to claim maintenance u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. In that context on a reference to the documentary evidence this Court finds that Ext. 1 is the Discharge Certificate from the Medical College Hospital, Cuttack. In that context on a reference to the documentary evidence this Court finds that Ext. 1 is the Discharge Certificate from the Medical College Hospital, Cuttack. Opposite party No.1 has not explained that she was got admitted into the hospital by the petitioner or the entries made in the registers of the Hospital were at his Instance or instruction. Under such circumstance, entry made in Ext. 1 recording her as the wife of the petitioner is of no avail co far as the present case is concerned. Similar is the fate of Ext. 2, the birth certificate. In that respect also petitioner No.1 has admitted in her evidence that she got the present petitioner s name entered in the register as the father of opposite party No. 2. Such an unilateral act of oposite party No. 1 is no evidence of paternity of the petitioner See the case of 3. Mahadeva Rao v. Yesoda Balk AIR 1962 Madras 141. 14. When the evidence tendered by opposite party No, 1 stands in the manner indicated in the preceding paragraphs, the oral evidence adduced by the petitioner In denying to the allegation of relationship with opposite party No. 1 and refusing to the paternity of opposite party No. 2 stands in the sphere of mere denial. Petitioner adduced evidence relating to his marriage with one Liemarani Pradhan and examined his father-in-law as O.P.W.4 to prove that such a marriage was performed before the alleged marriage with opposite party No. 1 in Cuttack Chandi Temple. Trial Court has disbelieved the plea of marriage with Litenrani on the ground of non-examined on of the priest, barber and other witnesses in support of such marriage with Litenstani. When there is no dispute on record that O.P.W.4 is the father of Litenstani Pradhan. that would have been sufficient for learned Judge, Family Court not to seek corroboration for the marriage between petitioner and Litenarani. Be that as it may, when that evidence has not beer, appreciated and there is not absolute illegality in that respect, therefore, this Court does not interfere with that finding of fact. On the failure of the Petitioner if prove marriage with Litenarani does not automatically makes him liable to provide maintenance to the opposite party members. Be that as it may, when that evidence has not beer, appreciated and there is not absolute illegality in that respect, therefore, this Court does not interfere with that finding of fact. On the failure of the Petitioner if prove marriage with Litenarani does not automatically makes him liable to provide maintenance to the opposite party members. For that opposite No. 1, as already noted, has to bring on record her status as the wife and the status of opposite party No. 2 as the child out of the wedlock. On assessment and appreciation of evidence adduced by opposite party No. 1, this Court finds that the finding recorded by learned Judge. Family Court was by ignoring the evidence on record and not on a proper assessment of evidence in accordance with the provision of law. Therefore, this Court has recorded a finding that on the existing evidence opposite party No. 1 has not been able to prove the inter se relationship. The documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner adds of the circumstance which does not favour factual finding relating to the inter se relationship. In that respect Exts. E and D are two voter lists prepared for the election in the years 1993 and 1995. In both the voter lists her place of abode has been indicated in her paternal home and she has been described as daughter of Alekha Behera. In other words, the said voter lists upto the year 1995 has not indicated that she was a married woman. The admission register in TRYSEM, Cuttack along with the relevant entry marked Exts. D and D/1 respectively so also the raw material register of TRYSEM and the relevant entry in that register respectively Exts. A and A/1 indicate that opposite party No. 1 has been described as an unmarried female. All the aforesaid entries are after her alleged marriage with the petitioner. Not only opposite party No. 1 has not produced any rebuttal evidence but also she has not explained those documents at the time of her evidence or even after such evidence was adduced by the petitioner by filing appropriate application for her re-examination. The said documentary evidence read with the evidence of O.P.W.5 Narayan Panda shakes the credibility of the case projected by opposite party No.1 in her alarm for maintenance as the wife of the petitioner. Unfortunately learned Judge. The said documentary evidence read with the evidence of O.P.W.5 Narayan Panda shakes the credibility of the case projected by opposite party No.1 in her alarm for maintenance as the wife of the petitioner. Unfortunately learned Judge. Family Court, Cuttack did not take note of such glaring evidence and superfluously dealt with a few item thereof without considering the law of evidence for the method in which such evidence should have been appreciated. 15. While undertaking the aforesaid exercise of appreciating the evidence on record vis-?-vis the finding recorded by the Court below, this Court has not insisted to of technical in approach so as to negative the claim of maintenance. When a woman claims maintenance it is to be paid by a man against whom such claim is made. When one of the claim non-existence of any relationship, Court cannot shut its eyes to all norms provided for justice only because a woman is claiming for maintenance. The minimum evidence which is required to be adduced to make the case believable if is wanting then the Court is certainly entitled to reject the claim of maintenance this inherent principle was completely lost sight of by learned Judge. Family Court while considering the case of the parties. 16. In course of argument it is stated at the Bar that a matrimonial proceeding between the panics under their personal law is sub-judice in the same family Court. Therefore, if so advised, opposite party No.1 may bring better evidence on record and to explain the evidence from the side of he petitioner in liar pursuit to claim the desired relief. It is needless to mention that in the event of her success in that matrimonial proceeding or proving her status as the wife through a Civil Court decree she is not legally debarred to again put forth a claim for maintenance u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure., if she would not be provided with maintenance under the concerned branch of Hindu law and all that stage this judgment shall not be a hurdle in that respect because the decree of the Civil Court will definitely supersede this finding. What has beer, discussed and decided in this Case is on the basis of evidence which is available to the Court and therefore the learned Judge. What has beer, discussed and decided in this Case is on the basis of evidence which is available to the Court and therefore the learned Judge. Family Court, Cuttack while adjudicating such matrimonial dispute shall be free to assess and appreciate the evidence which shall be tendered in that case to decide the dispute between the parties strictly in accordance with law and not being influenced by this judgment. 17. Coming to the merit of the impugned order this Court, because of the aforesaid finding, records that on the basis of evidence on records opposite party No. 1 having not been able to prove the status of opposite party members as the wife and child of the petitioner, therefore, their claim for maintenance u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure stands rejected. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and the Cri. Revision is allowed.