JUDGMENT B.P. RAY, J. : The appellant in this appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has challenged the judgment and decree dated 26.8.2002 and 9.9.2002 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) and Respondent No.2 (daughter) @ Rs.1000/- each per month towards their maintenance from the date of the application i.e. 3.1.2001. 2. The respondent No.1, who was petitioner in the Court below, had filed an application under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and 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 and respondent No.1 are Hindu by caste and they are governed by Hindu Law. Their marriage was solemnized at Itabhatta, Bandhamunda in presence of their relations and well-wishers as per the customs and 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 and in the year 1985 respond¬ent No.2 was born out of their wed-lock. After birth of respond¬ent No.2, it is alleged, the appellant started ill-treatment and neglected both the respondents (petitioners in the Court below) and 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 and 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 and used to abuse the respondent No.1 in filthy language and 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 previ¬ous husband having four children. After the arrival of pro-forma Respondent No.3, the respondents 1 and 2 were deprived of all sorts of amenities and were tortured and ultimately they were forced to leave the house of the appellant and they resided in the parental home of respondent No.1 in the aforementioned vil¬lage. The said ‘Malo’ was deserted by her previ¬ous husband having four children. After the arrival of pro-forma Respondent No.3, the respondents 1 and 2 were deprived of all sorts of amenities and were tortured and ultimately they were forced to leave the house of the appellant and they resided in the parental home of respondent No.1 in the aforementioned vil¬lage. It is stated that the desertion of respondent Nos.1 and 2 by the appellant was pre-planed and 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 and re¬spondent No.1 by holding Panchayats and no fruitful result was achieved and ultimately on 2.3.2000 the respondent No.1 and her child-respondent No.2 were thrown out of their house. Therefore, respondents 1 and 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 and 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 and 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 and 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 and petitioner No.1 belonged to two rival groups of unions and 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 and Rai¬bati 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.1 (in the Court below) is Malo. 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.1 (in the Court below) is Malo. It was specifi¬cally pleaded in the written statement that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have no locus standi to claim maintenance as the respondent No.1 is not the legally married wife of the appellant and respondent No.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 and 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 and 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 and proved 5 documents marked as Exhibits and the appellant and pro-forma respondent No.3 examined 2 witnesses and produced four documents which were marked as Exts. X, X/1, X/2 and X/3. On consideration of the materials on record, learned Judge, Family Court by his judgment and order dated 26.8.2002 directed the appellant to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondents No.1 and 2 @ Rs.1,000/- each. This judgment and order has been challenged in this appeal. 5. Mr. A.R. Dash, learned counsel for the appellant stren¬uously urged that in view of the embargo contained in Section 2(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, grant of mainte¬nance by the learned 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 and re¬spondent 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 and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. He further submitted that respondent No.1 having failed to prove that she is the legally married wife of the appellant and re¬spondent 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 and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. In response, learned counsel for the respondents con¬troverting the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is falacious to say that the suit of the appellant is hit by Section 2(2) of Hindu Adoptions & Mainte¬nance 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 and respondent No.2 born into their wedlock, this appeal filed challenging the impugned order of judgment and decree of the forum below is devoid of merit and desires to be dismissed. 6. On consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the contentions advanced, the following points arise for determi¬nation in this appeal : (i) Whether the suit is hit by Section 2(2) of the Hindu Adop¬tions & Maintenance Act ? (ii) Whether respondent No.1 is the legally married wife of the appellant ? (iii) Whether respondent No.2 is born 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 and 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 and not in the year 1986 as claimed by the appellant. In support of her version respondent No.1 has examined herself, her daughter and P.Ws. 3, 4, 6 & 7. P.Ws. 6 & 7 had categorically adduced evidence that appellant and respondent No.1 were married 20 years back and they were examined in the year 2002. In support of her version respondent No.1 has examined herself, her daughter and P.Ws. 3, 4, 6 & 7. P.Ws. 6 & 7 had categorically adduced evidence that appellant and respondent No.1 were married 20 years back and 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 and 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 and respondent No.1 lived together as husband and wife and 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 appel¬lant in accordance with Hindu Rights and 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 and not of Santhals provision of Hindu Succes¬sion 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 and 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 appli¬cation 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 and they are following the Hindu traditions. 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 and 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 and inheritance. 8. In the above circumstances, in our considered view strict proof of marriage is not necessary even the opinion ex¬pressed 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 and 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 and this fact is also corroborated by both oral and 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 and illiterate lady. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted here in below for ready reference :- “The petitioner No.1 adducing both oral and documentary evidence goes to show that she is the legally married wife of the respondent No.1. She appears to be a rustic and illiterate lady. The Court had occasion to see both the petitioners and the re¬spondent No.1 in the Court. It is mentioned above that the re¬spondent 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 and daughter of respondent No.1. The Court had occasion to see both the petitioners and the re¬spondent No.1 in the Court. It is mentioned above that the re¬spondent 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 and daughter of respondent No.1. I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2 and 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 and 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 and their evidence are not false and 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 and 2 are not the wife and 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 and Customs in the year 1982 and 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 and refusal for maintenance by the appellant. As admitted by the appellant, respondent No.2 (in the Court below) was kept as concubine and appellant had married her for the second in the year 1986. Therefore, in our considered view, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the wife and daughter of the appellant respectively and they are entitled to maintenance. The appellant being the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2, there is no manner of doubt that in the afore¬said circumstances, he is liable to maintain them. 10. Therefore, in our considered view, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the wife and daughter of the appellant respectively and they are entitled to maintenance. The appellant being the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2, there is no manner of doubt that in the afore¬said circumstances, he is liable to maintain them. 10. The appellant has filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. under Misc. Case No.8 of 2003 for adducing addi¬tional evidence. In the said application the appellant has pro¬duced bank pass book and medical cards which were prepared on 8.9.1995. The Xerox copies of the said documents show that pro¬forma respondent No.3 in this case is his wife and not the re¬spondent No.1. Since we have come to a conclusion that respondent No.1 is he legally married wife of the appellant and 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 evi¬dence 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 and after the exercise of due dili¬gence could not be produced by him at the time when the impugned judgment and 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 appel¬lant. Appeal dismissed.