JUDGMENT B.P. Ray, J. 1. The Appellant in this appeal filed Under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has challenged the judgment & decree dated 26.08.2002 & 09.09.2002 respectively passed by Learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in C.P. No. 1 of 2001 allowing the Civil Proceedings in which the Appellant was directed to pay Rs. 2000 to Respondent No. 1 (Wife) & Respondent No. 2 (daughter) @ Rs. 1000 each per month towards their maintenance from the date of the application i.e. 03.01.2001. 2. The Respondent No. 1, who was Petitioner in the Court below, had filed an application Under Sections 18 & 20 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 claiming maintenance from Respondent No. 1 (Appellant in this appeal). The case of the Respondent No. 1 is that both the Appellant & Respondent No. 1 are Hindu by Caste & they are governed by Hindu Law. Their marriage was solemnized at Itabhatta, Bandhamunda in presence of their relations & well-wishers as per the customs & rites prevalent in Santal Caste of Sarana Community in the year 1982. After marriage, both the parties stayed at Balijodi, Rourkela where the marriage was consummated & in the year 1985 Respondent No. 2 was born out of their wed-lock. After birth of Respondent No. 2, it is alleged, the Appellant started ill-treatment & neglected both the Respondents (Petitioners in the Court below) & they were forcibly sent to the parental house of Respondent No. 1. The Respondents having deprived of their basic amenities of life i.e. food & shelter, were subjected to physical torture. It is further alleged that the Respondents while undergoing the above experience in the house of the Appellant their miseries increased when the Appellant used to return home at late night in drunken state of mind & used to abuse the Respondent No. 1 in filthy language & assaulted her. It is further stated that in the year 1987 the Appellant brought a mistress, named as 'Malo' (Respondent No. 2 in the Court below) from Matiatola, Nayadera near Jalda, Rourkela. The said 'Malo' was deserted by her previous husband having four children. It is further stated that in the year 1987 the Appellant brought a mistress, named as 'Malo' (Respondent No. 2 in the Court below) from Matiatola, Nayadera near Jalda, Rourkela. The said 'Malo' was deserted by her previous husband having four children. After the arrival of pro-forma Respondent No. 3, the Respondents 1 & 2 were deprived of all sorts of amenities & were tortured & ultimately they were forced to leave the house of the Appellant & they resided in the parental home of Respondent No. 1 in the aforementioned village. It is stated that the desertion of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 by the Appellant was pre-planed & was at the behest of pro-forma Respondent No. 3. It was further stated that attempts were made for settlement of difference between the Appellant & Respondent No. 1 by holding Panchayats & no fruitful result was achieved & ultimately on 02.03.2000 the Respondent No. 1 & her child-Respondent No. 2 were thrown out of their house. Therefore, Respondents 1 & 2 were unable to maintain themselves as they were helpless, while the Appellant was an employee of Rourkela Steel Plant in the Electrical Maintenance Department & was getting Rs. 6,000 per month. 3. The Appellant as well as proforma-Respondent No. 3 filed their written statement denying the averments made in the petition. The Appellant claimed in his written statement that no marriage was solemnized between the Respondent No. 1 & the Appellant. On the other hand, it was specifically pleaded that the Appellant married the pro-forma Respondent No. 3 (Respondent No. 2 in the Court below). It was specifically denied that the pro-forma Respondent No. 3- Smt. Malo was a mistress. It was further stated in the said written statement that out of the marriage of the Appellant with pro-forma Respondent No. 3, four children were born through Appellant. It was further alleged in the written statement that the Appellant & the Respondent No. 1 were working as contract labourers. By virtue of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Appellant got employment in 1995. It was further alleged in the written statement that the Appellant & the Respondent No. 1 were working as contract labourers. By virtue of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Appellant got employment in 1995. As the Respondent No. 1 & Petitioner No. 1 belonged to two rival groups of unions & the Petitioner No. 1 did not get employment, by clever tactics, in the name of Respondent No. 2 disguising her actual name, filed the case as if she is Gurubari Murmu & Raibati Murmu as daughter through Respondent No. 1, But, actually the name of Respondent No. 2 is Gurubari Marandi, daughter of Luchhu Marandi of Matiali, District Mayurbhanj. After the marriage of Gurubari Marandi she changed her surname to Murmu. The nick name of Respondent No. 2 (in the Court below) is Malo. It was specifically pleaded in the written statement that the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have no locus standi to claim maintenance as the Respondent No. 1 is not the legally married wife of the Appellant & Respondent Nos. 2 was never born out of the said wed-lock. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, he claims dismissal of the Civil Proceeding. The Appellant further states that the suit is barred by Section 2(2) of Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act inasmuch as the same provides that the said Act has got no application to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of Clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs & till date no such contrary direction has been made by the Central Government. 4. In order to substantiate her case Respondent No. 1 (Petitioner No. 1 in the Court below) examined 7 witnesses & proved 5 documents marked as Exhibits & the Appellant & pro-forma Respondent No. 3 examined 2 witnesses & produced four documents which were marked as Exts. X, X/1, X/2 & X/3. On consideration of the materials on record, Learned Judge, Family Court by his judgment & Order Dated 26.08.2002 directed the Appellant to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,000 per month to the Respondents No. 1 & 2 @ Rs. 1,000 each. This judgment & order has been challenged in this appeal. 5. Mr. X, X/1, X/2 & X/3. On consideration of the materials on record, Learned Judge, Family Court by his judgment & Order Dated 26.08.2002 directed the Appellant to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,000 per month to the Respondents No. 1 & 2 @ Rs. 1,000 each. This judgment & order has been challenged in this appeal. 5. Mr. A.R. Dash, Learned Counsel for the Appellant strenuously urged that in view of the embargo contained in Section 2(2) of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, grant of maintenance by the leaned Judge, Family Court is without jurisdiction. He further submitted that- Respondent No. 1 having failed to prove that she is the legally married wife of the Appellant & Respondent No. 2 is the daughter born out of their wed-lock, grant of maintenance by the Learned Judge, Family Court is contrary to the materials available on record & cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. In response, Learned Counsel for the Respondents controverting the submission advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that it is fallacious to say that the suit of the Appellant is hit by Section 2(2) of Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, inasmuch as there was no dispute that the parties are governed by Hindu Law. So also it is submitted by him that there being clinching evidence on record to prove that Respondent No. 1 (Petitioner in the Court below) is the legally married wife of the Appellant & Respondent No. 2 bom into their wedlock, this appeal filed challenging the impugned order of judgment & decree of the forum below is devoid of merit & desires to be dismissed. 6. (SIC) On consideration of the pleadings of the parties & the contentions advanced, the following points arise for determination in this appeal: i. Whether the suit is hit by Section 2(2) of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act? ii. Whether Respondent No. 1 is the legally married wife of the Appellant? iii. Whether Respondent No. 2 is bom into their wedlock? iv. Whether the Respondents are entitled to maintenance from the Appellant? v. To what reliefs the parties are entitled? The point Nos. (i) to (iv) being interlinked, they are taken up together for determination for the shake of convenience. We have gone through the records & also heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the parties belong to Santal community. iv. Whether the Respondents are entitled to maintenance from the Appellant? v. To what reliefs the parties are entitled? The point Nos. (i) to (iv) being interlinked, they are taken up together for determination for the shake of convenience. We have gone through the records & also heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the parties belong to Santal community. Respondent No. 1 in her evidence has categorically stated that she had married the Appellant in the year 1982 & not in the year 1986 as claimed by the Appellant. In support of her version Respondent No. 1 has examined herself, her daughter & P. Ws 3, 4, 6 & 7.P. Ws 6 & 7 had categorically adduced evidence that Appellant & Respondent No. 1 were married 20 years back & they were examined in the year 2002. Learned Judge, Family Court had written a letter to the authority of local office of the E.S.I. Corporation on 15.3.2002 to produce the E.S.I. nomination papers of the Appellant. In reply to the said letter, the Manager E.S.I. Corporation, Rourkela by letter dated 17.4.2002 has sent a copy of the nomination paper filed by the Appellant from which it appears that the Appellant has given a declaration on 14.11.1983 marked as Ext. 5 that the name of wife of the Appellant is Gurubari Murmu & her age is about 24 years. Therefore, the plea of the Appellant in the Court below that he married in the year 1986 to Respondent No. 1 can not be believed. There is also no contrary evidence on record to disbelieve the statement of P. Ws. who have categorically deposed that the Appellant & Respondent No. 1 lived together as husband & wife & out of their wedlock, Respondent No. 2 was born. There is no reason to discard the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of Respondent No. 1, the Petitioner in Court below, to prove her marriage with the Appellant in accordance with Hindu Rights & Customs at Itabhatta. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi, 2001(2) Supreme 568 has observed that when evidence disclosed that parties belonging to Santhal Tribe were following customs of Hindus & not of Santhals provision of Hindu Succession Act would apply to inheritance of property. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Labishwar Manjhi v. Pran Manjhi, 2001(2) Supreme 568 has observed that when evidence disclosed that parties belonging to Santhal Tribe were following customs of Hindus & not of Santhals provision of Hindu Succession Act would apply to inheritance of property. It has also been observed therein that: The finding is that they are following the customs of the Hindu & not of the Santhals. In view of such a clear finding, it is not possible to hold that Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of Hindu Succession Act excludes the present parties from the application of the said Act. Sub-section (2) only excludes members of any Schedule Tribes, admittedly as per finding recorded in the present case though the parties originally belong to the Santhal Scheduled Tribe they are Hindus & they are following the Hindu traditions. Hence, we have no hesitation to 'hold that Sub-section (2) will not apply to exclude the parties from application of Hindu Succession Act. It therefore, appears from the ratio of the case referred to above that it is the well recognized principle of law that if a Santhal, though a Scheduled Tribe, shall be governed by Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the matter of succession & inheritance. 8. In the above circumstances, in our considered view strict proof of marriage is not necessary even the opinion expressed by the local people having special means of knowledge is sufficient to prove the factum of marriage. Therefore, we hold that the Appellant has married the Respondent No. 1 with all formal requisite ceremony of a valid marriage. Accordingly, the plea of the Appellant that he married to Respondent No. 2 (in Court below) in 1986 is a clever ruse & it can not be believed. The Appellant is a blatant lier as in his own saying he has declared that Respondent No. 1 is his legally married wife prior to the declaration made in the year 1983. The Respondent No. 2 in the Court below has categorically stated that the Appellant is her father & this fact is also corroborated by both oral & documentary evidence adduced in this case. It is observed by the Trial Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment that Respondent No. 1 is a rustic & illiterate lady. The Respondent No. 2 in the Court below has categorically stated that the Appellant is her father & this fact is also corroborated by both oral & documentary evidence adduced in this case. It is observed by the Trial Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment that Respondent No. 1 is a rustic & illiterate lady. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted here in below for ready reference: The Petitioner No. 1 adducing both oral & documentary evidence goes to show that she is the legally married wife of the Respondent No. 1. She appears to be a rustic & illiterate lady. The Court had occasion to see both the Petitioners & the Respondent No. 1 in the Court. It is mentioned above that the Respondent No. 2 is neither present in the Court nor she has been examined in support of the case of the Respondents. The Petitioners have proved that they are the wife & daughter of Respondent No. 1. I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 2 & hence, the plea of the Respondent that she has fabricated the documents to make out her case is without any basis. I have found that she is unable to speak Oriya & her language was interpreted by the interpreter appointed by the Court. She (Petitioner No. 1) is an inhabitant of interior part of the district of Sundargarh. Her version is that the misery started soon after the Respondent No. 2 came to the house of Respondent No. 1. Thus, I am persuaded to believe that the documents exhibited by these Petitioners & their evidence are not false & fabricated. Accordingly, taking into consideration the evidence as discussed above, I am of the opinion that the Respondents failed to make out a probable case in support of their plea that the Petitioners No. 1 & 2 are not the wife & daughter of Respondent No. 1. 9. The contention of Mr. Das, Learned Counsel for the Appellant that no material evidence has been led by the parties to show that they belong to Hindu is against the weight of the materials on record inasmuch as the parties have married in accordance with Hindu Rights & Customs in the year 1982 & out of their said wedlock, Respondent No. 2 was born. Das, Learned Counsel for the Appellant that no material evidence has been led by the parties to show that they belong to Hindu is against the weight of the materials on record inasmuch as the parties have married in accordance with Hindu Rights & Customs in the year 1982 & out of their said wedlock, Respondent No. 2 was born. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the parties are governed by Hindu Law. The Respondent-Petitioners in the Court below have amply proved regarding their desertion & refusal for maintenance by the Appellant. As admitted by the Appellant, Respondent No. 2 (in the Court below) was kept as concubine & Appellant had married her for the second time in the year 1986. Therefore, in our considered view, Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are the wife & daughter of the Appellant respectively & they are entitled to maintenance. The Appellant being the husband of Respondent No. 1 & father of Respondent No. 2, there is no manner of doubt that in the aforesaid circumstances, he is liable to maintain them. 10. The Appellant has filed an application under Order-41, Rule-27, Code of Civil Procedure under Misc. case No. 8 of 2003 for adducing additional evidence. In the said application the Appellant has produced bank pass book & medical cards which were prepared on 8.9.1995. The xerox copies of the said documents show that proforma Respondent No. 3 in this case is his wife & not the Respondent No. 1. Since we have come to a conclusion that Respondent No. 1 is the legally married wife of the Appellant & the marriage was solemnized in the year 1982, the documents sought to be introduced as additional evidence have no relevance in deciding the lis between the parties in this appeal. Accordingly, the prayer for adducing additional evidence is rejected. Further more, the Appellant has also not shown that the additional evidence sought to be adduced by him in the Court below was refused to be admitted in the evidence by the Trial Court or has not shown that the aforesaid evidence which was there in existence was not within the knowledge & after the exercise of due diligence could not be produced by him at the time when the impugned judgment & decree was passed. So also we do not feel that the additional evidence sought to be adduced is required to pronounce the judgment or for any substantial cause. In such circumstances, the prayer for adducing additional evidence is devoid of merit. 11. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, hence the same is dismissed. The Appellant is directed to deposit the entire maintenance amount as ordered by the Judge, Family Court, Rourkela within two months from today failing which, execution proceeding shall be initiated against the Appellant. A.S. Naidu, J. I agree.