JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate alongwith Ms. Supriya Dayal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no .2. 3. Heard Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State. 4. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the Judgment dated 23.09.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. Case No. 03/2005 under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure passed by learned Principal Judge, family Court at Sahibganj whereby the petitioner has been directed to make payment of maintenance allowance to the opposite party no. 2 @ Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of that order and to pay Rs. 3000/- per month from the date of institution of the case with a direction to pay the current maintenance by every 10th calendar day of succeeding month. Further, the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the opposite party as litigation cost. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 has not been proved and accordingly, the impugned order of maintenance is ex-facie illegal and perverse. The learned counsel further submits that even if the marriage is assumed to have taken place, there is no detail regarding date of marriage and it appears that the petitioner was minor at the time of alleged marriage and therefore, the marriage itself is a nullity. He submits that in this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and suffers from perversity. Arguments on behalf of the opposite parties 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, has referred to the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 11 SCC 491 , Paragraphs- 15, 21 and 22, and another judgment reported in (2008) 3 Eastern Criminal Cases 233 (Patna) to submit that at the stage of deciding the case of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr. P.C., there is no final adjudication regarding marriage and only prima-facie case is required to be seen so far as the marriage is concerned. P.C., there is no final adjudication regarding marriage and only prima-facie case is required to be seen so far as the marriage is concerned. He submits that even if the petitioner was minor on the date of marriage, the marriage is not a nullity and no petition has been filed for declaring the marriage as nullity. The learned counsel also submits that in spite of the orders passed by the learned court below, no amount has been remitted to the opposite party no. 2 so far. 7. So far as the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party- State, Mr. Tarun Kumar is concerned, he has supported the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. Findings of this Court 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that a petition under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by Pinki Devi (opposite party no. 2) claiming herself to be the wife of the present petitioner with a prayer to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance and also Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost. 9. The Specific case of the present petitioner before the learned court below was that the case was not maintainable and he denied the marriage with the applicant. It was also denied that after marriage, the applicant went to Sasural and led happy conjugal life for six months. It was also alleged that in the year 1997, when the alleged marriage was solemnized, the present petitioner was minor and hence, the question of his marriage does not arise. 10. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner joined Jharkhand Police in the year 2005 as Constable. It was a specific case of the present petitioner before the learned court below that neither the marriage between the parties took place, nor marriage was consummated and when the petitioner joined Jharkhand police as constable, the applicant came forward with a claim that she is a legally married wife and the only purpose was to extort money from the petitioner. 11. The learned trial court, while deciding the case, framed following two issues for determination: (a) Whether the applicant is the legally married wife of the opposite party? 11. The learned trial court, while deciding the case, framed following two issues for determination: (a) Whether the applicant is the legally married wife of the opposite party? (b)Whether the applicant is not being maintained by the opposite party and she is entitled for maintenance and if yes, what should be the quantum? 12. Before the learned court below, altogether five witnesses were examined on behalf of the applicant (opposite party no. 2 herein) and four witnesses were examined on behalf of the present petitioner. The learned court below scrutinized all the evidences, both documentary and oral, and recorded its findings inter alia at Para- 22 and 24, which also dealt with the argument of minority of the present petitioner at the time of marriage. The learned court below found that Rajendra Thakur (AW.2) and Uma Kant Ojha (AW.3) have been examined and they have stated that they had performed the rituals of marriage of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 as thakur and purohit respectively. Further AW.4 and AW.5 have taken the names of Uma Kant Ojha and Rajendra Thakur as purohit and thakur who had performed the rituals. The learned court below also considered that the applicant (present opposite party no. 2) could not state the names of purohit and thakur correctly, but other witnesses have correctly taken their names and explanation given by the learned counsel for the applicant that marriage was solemnized in the year 1997 and AW.1 was examined before the court below in the year 2012 and due to laps of time, she could not state the names of purohit and thakur correctly, appeared to be convincing and genuine and other witnesses have correctly taken their names. The learned court below inferred that Uma Kant Ojha and Rajendra Thakur had performed rituals during marriage. 13. This Court finds that certain photographs of marriage were produced and were marked as Exhibit- X and X/1 for identification. The learned court below, while considering this aspect of the matter, observed that when the petitioner was confronted with these photographs, he denied his presence in these photographs. 13. This Court finds that certain photographs of marriage were produced and were marked as Exhibit- X and X/1 for identification. The learned court below, while considering this aspect of the matter, observed that when the petitioner was confronted with these photographs, he denied his presence in these photographs. However, at the same time, the learned court below observed that the present petitioner in his cross-examination, completely denied his visit to village Kodarjanna, but when the court went through the show-cause filed by him, his visit to village was admitted alongwith his family members including sister-in-law of his cousin Srikant Sharma and the sister-in-law is none other than the applicant. In Para-9, the petitioner had stated about taking of his photographs after making him senseless by serving intoxicated foods and the learned court below was of the view that directly or indirectly, the present petitioner has admitted that photographs were snapped in Bari Kodarjanna, that too in the year 1997. 14. So far as the ground of minority is concerned, the learned court below considered the evidences on record and rejected the argument. The learned court below, while rejecting the plea, was of the view that usually in village area when a person gets his ward admitted in school, he tries to conceal the actual date of birth of his ward and usually showing two to three years younger of his actual age, his date of birth is reported and mentioned in the admission form. Moreover, this is not a case in which marriage has been challenged on the ground of age of the applicant or opposite party. This is a maintenance case and in such cases, court should not expect strict proof of marriage. The proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is summary in nature and as such, strict proof of marriage is not required. The learned court found that this view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in its decision reported in 2008 (3) East Cr C 233 and in case of maintenance, the Court has to prima facie satisfy that marriage has been solemnized. Whether it is a void marriage or voidable marriage, question cannot be considered and discussed in case of maintenance and if this was a void marriage, the opposite party was at liberty to get it nullify by filing a suit. 15. Whether it is a void marriage or voidable marriage, question cannot be considered and discussed in case of maintenance and if this was a void marriage, the opposite party was at liberty to get it nullify by filing a suit. 15. This Court finds that the learned court below, after carefully scrutinizing the evidences in the proceeding under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure came to the prima-facie conclusion that the applicant was legally married wife of the present petitioner. The learned court below also found that she was not being maintained by the present petitioner and was unable to maintain herself and deserved maintenance from the present petitioner. 16. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, no argument as such has been advanced and it is not in dispute that the present petitioner is a Constable in Jharkhand police and he came in service in the year 2005. 17. Learned court below granted maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month and the maintenance was allowed from the date of filing of the case. It was ordered that the petitioner will pay maintenance allowance to the applicant @ Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of the order and will pay maintenance allowance to the applicant from the date of institution of the case till the date of the order @ Rs.3,000/- per month and current maintenance allowance to be paid by 10th calendar day of the preceding month. The arrear component of maintenance was directed to be paid within six months from the date of the order and further, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the applicant as litigant cost. 18. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) 11 SCC 491 and has referred to Para- 15, 21 and 22 of the said judgment. In Para-22 of the said judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that based upon oral and documentary evidence, when the family court holds that there was a valid marriage, the High Court being the revisional court, has no power reassessing the evidence and substitute its views on findings of fact. In Para-22 of the said judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that based upon oral and documentary evidence, when the family court holds that there was a valid marriage, the High Court being the revisional court, has no power reassessing the evidence and substitute its views on findings of fact. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was also of the view that the concerned High Court did not keep in mind that in the proceeding under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, strict proof of marriage is not necessary and accordingly, the findings recorded by the family court as to the existence of a valid marriage ought not to have been interfered with by the concerned High Court. In para 7 of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1988) 1 SCC 537 (Bakulabai and Another Vs. Ganga Ram and Another), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that in circumstances where no error of law is discovered in the judgement passed under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the revisional court is not justified in making a reassessment of evidence and substitute its own views. 19. This Court finds that in the present case also, the learned court below has recorded finding of marriage after full consideration of evidences and strict proof of marriage is not necessary in a proceeding for maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, such prima-facie finding of marriage based on appreciation of evidence on record need not be disturbed by this Court in revisional jurisdiction in absence of any error of law. In the instant case, no error of law has been pointed out and the points raised by the petitioner before this court were raised, considered and rejected by the learned court below by a well-reasoned order. 20. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, this Court, in revisional jurisdiction, finds no merit in the present criminal revision application. This Court finds that the impugned Judgment passed by the learned court below is a well-reasoned order considering both oral and documentary evidences and considering all the arguments and aspects of the matter. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed. 21. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 22. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 23. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed. 21. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 22. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 23. Let the records of lower court as received, be sent back to the court concerned. 24. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through “FAX/Email”.