JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. The judgment dated 31-5-2004 passed by learned Judge of the Family Court, Agartala in Misc. Case No. 83/2002 on a prayer for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Code') stands impugned in the present revision petition. By that judgment the petitioner herein who is a Police officer of the State Administration has been directed to pay Rs. 1500/- per month to his estranged wife, the respondent herein, with a further direction to the Drawing and Disbursing Officer concerned to deduct Rs. 1500/- from the salary of the petitioner herein and remit the same to the respondent-wife. 2. The material facts giving rise to the maintenance proceeding may be noted at the outset. Smti Nilima Debbarma, the respondent herein claimed that she was married to Sri Yubaraj Chakma, the petitioner herein on 11-6-1997 as per the social custom of Debbarma community and since marriage they have been living in conjugal peace in different places of posting of her husband till 25th January, 1999. The split in their relation surfaced when on 26th January, 1999 Yubaraj had left her on the plea that he would appear in B. A. Examination. Since then he refused to return and live with Nilima widening the breach in the relation and forcing her to take shelter with her parents. When all attempts towards reconciliation proved futile, she approached the Family Court for maintenance. Their conjugal relation was, however, totally denied by Yubaraj who contested the claim of maintenance and came with a story that he was already married to one Jhumki Chakma (Das) on 12-7-1994 and from their wedlock a daughter was born. In the face of total denial of the marriage between Yubaraj and Nilima the learned Family Court was called upon to decide whether there existed a prima facie case of marriage between the two in order to decide the controversy and determine the claim of maintenance. 3. Confronted with the total denial of the marriage claimed by Yubaraj, the respondent herein examined herself as P.W. 1 and produced four witnesses to support her claim. According to her the marriage had taken place in the house of her father Chandra Mohan Debbarma (P.W. 4) in village Kanchanmala and after the marriage the spouses settled in the house of Renu Debbarma (P.W. 2) at Bishramganj. According to her the marriage had taken place in the house of her father Chandra Mohan Debbarma (P.W. 4) in village Kanchanmala and after the marriage the spouses settled in the house of Renu Debbarma (P.W. 2) at Bishramganj. After a month they shifted to the house of Harilal Podder (not examined) at Banamalipur, Agartala, where they stayed for six months. Thereafter they shifted to Sekerkote and stayed in the house of Mohan Lal Choudhury (not examined) as tenant. In the year 1998 Yubaraj was selected for the post of 'Amin' and went to Camperbazar for training. But thereafter, he was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police. They lived together till 25th January, 1999 whereafter, Yubaraj left Sekarkote to appear in B. A. Examination. Since then there was no living together as he did not return to her denying the relation altogether. 4. Her version has received support from Renu Debbarma, P.W. 2, according to whom, Yubaraj was known to him when he was posted at Silachari and after getting employment Yubaraj came to live In his house as a tenant and used to address his mother as 'Didi'. The witness further stated that the marriage between Yubaraj and Nilima was settled by him and others and he participated in the marriage as a bride-groom party. After the marriage, the couple lived in his house for some time. The third witness produced by her is Dilip Sarkar, a close neighbour of her parents, who was present in the house of her parents when the marriage ceremony was held on 11th June, 1997. According to this witness after the marriage the couple lived in the house of Renu Debbarma at Bisramganj. Her father is P.W. 4, who stated about the marriage ceremony between the two on 11-6-1997 in his house following the tribal customary laws. About his daughter and son-in-law living together after marriage he stated that they firstly lived in the house of Renu Debbarma and finally in rented house at Sekerkote. In all material aspects the statements supported the version of his daughter. The 5th witness is Nani Gopal Bhowmik, who was also present in the wedding on 11-6-1997. Thus, the respondent herein has sought to build up a prima facie case of marriage in support of her claim for maintenance. 5. In all material aspects the statements supported the version of his daughter. The 5th witness is Nani Gopal Bhowmik, who was also present in the wedding on 11-6-1997. Thus, the respondent herein has sought to build up a prima facie case of marriage in support of her claim for maintenance. 5. The petitioner husband, on the other hand, denied the marriage In his deposition as D. W. 1, flatly stating that he did not even know the petitioner. The petitioner herein claimed that he was married in the year 1994 and living with his wife and son. His other witness is one Kunjamala Chakma, according to whom, Yubaraj was her next-door neighbour and he married Jhumki Chakma. Yubaraj, however, has not examined Jhumki Chakma or any other witness. 6. It may be noticed from the records on 2-12-2002 learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, West Tripura, Agartala passed an order in Misc. Case No. 83/2002 on the prayer of the respondent-wife directing the petitioner-husband to pay an amount of Rs. 1500/- per month w.e.f. 1-12-2002 but the said order was assailed in Criminal Revision 3(1)/2003 before the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, who by judgment dated 17-9-2003 observed that as the order of maintenance was passed ex parte without giving notice to the other side, the same should be set aside. Accordingly, after setting aside the order of maintenance the learned Sessions Judge directed the Judicial Magistrate to retry the case in accordance with law. Thereafter, the proceeding came before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agartala, who later transferred the case to the Family Court. The proceeding before the said Family Court ended in the order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance, which has been impugned in the present revision petition. 7. In order to adjudicate the controversy before the learned Family Court, following two issues were framed, namely : (1) Whether the petitioner (respondent herein) was the legally married wife of the opposite party and if so, whether the opposite party (petitioner herein) deserted her and had not paid her any amount for maintenance; (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to have any relief and if so, upto what extent. Discussing in details the statements of the witnesses of the contending parties, the learned Family Judge came to the finding that the evidence and materials produced by Nilima, prima facie established that she was legally married to Yubaraj according to their customary law and they lived together since their marriage on 11-6-1997 till 21-1-1999. It has been observed that though Nilima produced witnesses who were present in their wedding and in whose house they stayed after marriage, Yubaraj, the petitioner herein, failed to produce any proof with regard to his marriage with one Jhumki Chakma prior to alleged marriage with Nilima. Yubaraj, however, produced photocopies of certain documents, which included a Ration Card, a certificate issued by B.D.O., Rupaichari R.D. Block and an application received by police authority. All these documents were issued in 2002 and those photo copies were not formally proved by producing any witnesses. As such documents do not prove the claim of Yubaraj that he was married to Jumki Chakma before his alleged marriage with Nilima, the learned Judge, Family Court has, in my view correctly, refused to rely on them. The impugned judgment was thus passed after being satisfied that a prima facie case of valid marriage between the two existed and the rival pleadings made it clear that Yubaraj was not providing maintenance to Nilima. 8. I have heard Mr. A.C. Bhowmik and Mr. R. Datta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.R. Barman, learned Counsel for the respondent. 9. It needs no detail examination that the evidence and materials produced by the respondent wile have established prima fade case. Her marriage with the petitioner and what the petitioner has adduced by examining himself and the neighbour is so scanty that their deposition has nothing to rebut the presumptive value of the evidence and materials on the side of the respondent. The question that has been advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, when according to the respondent-wife the marriage had taken place only on 11 -6-1997 and the documents such as ration card, panchayat registration document indicate one Jhumki Chakma as wife of Yubaraj in 1995 whether a second wife is entitled to any maintenance. Mr. Bhowmik made an endeavour to bring home this point and highlighted the law on this question as decided by the Supreme Court in Khemchand Om Prakash Sharma v. State of Gujarat and Anr. Mr. Bhowmik made an endeavour to bring home this point and highlighted the law on this question as decided by the Supreme Court in Khemchand Om Prakash Sharma v. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in : (2000) 3 SCC 753 . It was decided by the Apex Court in that case that during the subsistence of the first marriage, any second marriage is null and void, and therefore, the Courts below committed a mistake in granting maintenance to the second wife. This decision was rendered on the admitted fact that the applicant's first wife was alive and the first marriage was not annulled by a decree of divorce or otherwise when the second marriage had taken place. The facts situation in the case of Khemchand (supra) is totally different from the one on our hand. The other decision referred to by the petitioner is in Smti Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Anr. reported in 1988 CriLJ 793. The same legal position has been laid down by holding that marriage with a person having a spouse living is null and void under the Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore, the second wife cannot be treated to be the wife within the meaning of Section 125 of the Code. The other decision referred to by the petitioner is of Madras High Court in Jayalakshmi v. Krishna Padayachi reported in AIR 2003 mad 134 . That case was in relation to Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and it was held that women marrying man when his earlier marriage was not dissolved and when his first wife was living is not entitled to claim maintenance under the said Act. Though this decision has no direct bearing on the law of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code, the settled principle in all the cases is same, that is to say, during the lifetime of the first wife the second marriage is void and the expression 'wife for the purpose of maintenance under Section 125of the Code does not include a wife of the second marriage if the first marriage survives and the first wife is living. 10. This legal position noted above is not res Integra. 10. This legal position noted above is not res Integra. In the present case this Court is confronted with the question whether the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent had taken place when the first marriage of the petitioner-husband with another was subsisting and the first wife was living. Once it is found that the respondent wife has established prima facie her marriage with the petitioner had taken place on 11-6-1997 it is to be seen whether such prima facie evidence could be rebutted by the petitioner by producing convincing evidence and materials to prove that he had a first wife living at the time of the alleged marriage to (with) the respondent. The burden of proof about an earlier marriage is heavy on the husband who puts forward such a claim. It is not enough to say before the Court that he married another woman and that he does not know the respondent. It is also not enough to produce photocopies of family register of panchayat and ration card containing the name of Jhumki Chakma as his wife to discharge the burden of strict proof about subsistence of an earlier marriage. In Vimala (K) v. Veeraswamy (K) reported in [1991] 1 SCR 904 the Apex Court held as follows : Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. When an attempt is made by the husband to negative the claim of the neglected wife depicting her as a kept-mis-tress on the specious plea that he was already married, the Court would insist on strict proof of the earlier marriage. The term 'wife' in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, includes a woman who has been divorced by a husband or who has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. The woman not having the legal status of a wife is thus brought within the inclusive definition of the term 'wife' consistent with the objective. However, under the law a second wife whose marriage is void on account of the survival of the first marriage is not a legally wedded wife and is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance under this provision. However, under the law a second wife whose marriage is void on account of the survival of the first marriage is not a legally wedded wife and is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance under this provision. Therefore, the law which disentitles the second wife from receiving maintenance from her husband under Section 125, Cr. P. C, for the sole reason that the marriage ceremony though performed in the customary form lacks legal sanctity can be applied only when the husband satisfactorily proves the subsistence of a legal and valid marriage particularly when the provision in the Code is a measure of social justice intended to protect women and children. We are unable to find that the respondent herein has discharged the heavy burden by tendering strict proof of the fact in issue. The High Court failed to consider the standard of proof required and has proceeded on no evidence whatsoever in determining the question against the appellant. We are, therefore, unable to agree that the appellant is not entitled to maintenance. From the above decision it would be clear that the second wife shall be disentitled to receive any maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Code only when the husband satisfactorily proves the subsistence of a legal and valid marriage when the provision in the Code is a measure of social justice intended to protect women and children. 11. On the other hand, in maintenance proceeding under Section 125 of the Code strict proof of marriage is not required. The Court shall grant maintenance if the claimant prima facie satisfies the Court that the claimant and her husband lived as husband and wife. It is not necessary to prove the essentials of marriage ceremonies. The learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Anr. reported in 2000 CriLJ 1. On the standard of proof in such a proceeding the Supreme Court held in para 6 of the Judgment, which is gainfully quoted below: 6. In our view, validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceeding under Section 125, Cr. P.C. is to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties. On the standard of proof in such a proceeding the Supreme Court held in para 6 of the Judgment, which is gainfully quoted below: 6. In our view, validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceeding under Section 125, Cr. P.C. is to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties. The standard of proof of marriage in such proceeding is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under Section 494of the I.P.C. If the claimant in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code succeeds in showing that she and the respondent have lived together as husband and wife, the Court can presume that they are legally wedded spouses, and in such a situation, the party who denies the marital status can rebut the presumption. 12. As noticed above, the respondent-wife has proved prima facie that the marriage between her and the petitioner had taken place in her parents house on 11-6-1997 in presence of the witnesses and thereafter they lived together in rented house and one landlord (P.W. 2) has been examined to support the version that the couple lived together in his house. 13. I find no reason to disagree with the findings of the learned Family Court that the evidence of marriage and living together brought on record by the respondent-wife has prima facie established the conjugal relation between the two. The short deposition of the petitioner-husband and his witness simply denying the marriage could not, in my opinion, rebut the prima facie evidence on the side of the respondent-wife. Like the learned Judge of the Family Court, I am unable to find that the petitioner herein has discharged the heavy burden of tendering strict proof of the fact in issue that he had his first wife living at the time of alleged marriage between him and the respondent. I am, therefore, unable to accept the submission of the petitioner herein that the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance in view of the position that the date of her marriage with him as claimed by her is subsequent to the date of his marriage with his first wife because of his failure of discharging his burden of proving the first marriage. 14. 14. For the discussions and the reasons noted above, this Criminal Revision Petition is of no merit and, therefore, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed