ORDER : Maintenance Case No.162 of 2009 was instituted on the application of Sanjhali Kisku filed under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance of Rs.9000/- per month from Churka Marandi, the opposite party (the petitioner herein). 2. In the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was filed on 26.08.2008, Sanjhali Kisku (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) stated that she was married to Churka Marandi about 15 years ago according to Santhal custom and started living together. The opposite party who was headmaster at Primary School, Naudiha getting Rs. 18000/- per month in salary and possessed other agricultural and landed properties suddenly started maarpit with her since last one year. He would harass, humiliate and torture her in various ways. On 27.07.2008 he came home intoxicated and thrown her out from house. At her instance a Panchayati was convened but her husband remained adamant not to permit her to live in the matrimonial house. The opposite party denied the allegations of the applicant and emphatically asserted that the applicant was a stranger. She was staying with his younger brother as his concubine and at the instance of his brother who wanted to grab his properties the applicant filed a false and fabricated case against him. The opposite party has further stated that his marriage was solemnized with Pakku Baski in the year 1968, she died on 01.11.2007 and after the death of his first wife he solemnized marriage with Sanjhali Soren with whom he has two children. 3. In the proceeding of Maintenance Case No.162 of 2009 both parties have examined themselves besides other witnesses and they have also laid in evidence several documents in support of their stand. 4. Mr. Anurag Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without proof of marriage between Sanjhali Kisku and Churka Marandi and, that too, when there was evidence of conclusive nature that Churka Marandi was married to Pakku Baski and after her death to Sanjhali Soren, award of maintenance to the applicant is patently erroneous. 5. The opposite party has denied marriage with the applicant. Jisu Marandi who was examined by the applicant as a witness has deposed in the Court that Sanjhali Kishi is the legally married wife of Churka Marandi. 5. The opposite party has denied marriage with the applicant. Jisu Marandi who was examined by the applicant as a witness has deposed in the Court that Sanjhali Kishi is the legally married wife of Churka Marandi. The opposite party would set-up a plea that Jisu Marandi had greedy eyes on his properties and his evidence was motivated. But, in my opinion, what has prompted the learned Family Court Judge to accept the claim of the applicant for maintenance was other overwhelming evidences laid during the trial - evidence of Jisu Marandi is just another piece of evidence. Jisu Marandi has deposed in the Court that the first wife of Churka Marandi died, Churka Marandi was headmaster at Naudiha Middle School and he was earning Rs.50000/- per month. The aforesaid facts stated by Jisu Marandi were admitted by the opposite party. In the cross-examination this witness has stood to his grounds and affirmed that name of wife of the opposite party is Sanjhali Kisku. He has further stated that with Pakku Baski the opposite party had one son and three daughters but unfortunately they all have passed away. These facts were also not denied by the opposite party and therefore there is no reason to think that other part of his evidence is tainted with motive. During the trial, the opposite party has laid evidence to the effect that two children, one son and one daughter, were born from his marriage with Sanjhali Soren. The witnesses examined by the opposite party have stated that after the death of his first wife the opposite party was married to Sanjhali Soren, and the applicant has laid evidence in denial. 6. At the outset, I may indicate that the proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, primarily civil in nature, are summary proceedings and unlike criminal proceedings strict rules of evidence are not applied by the court in a summary proceeding. The learned Family Court Judge has taken note of every minute detail of the case and on a proper appreciation of the materials on record concluded that the opposite party is liable to maintain Sanjhali Kisku. 7. The applicant was living together with the opposite party for about 15 years is reflected in various documents filed by her. The learned Family Court Judge has taken note of every minute detail of the case and on a proper appreciation of the materials on record concluded that the opposite party is liable to maintain Sanjhali Kisku. 7. The applicant was living together with the opposite party for about 15 years is reflected in various documents filed by her. She has filed a certified copy of the voter-list, medical prescriptions, joint photographs, certificate of the insurance company, Adhar Card, copy of the order sheet in PCR Case No.533 of 2008 and other documents. The opposite party has filed Voter ID Card in the name of Sanjhali Soren, Adhar Card of Puja Marandi, his own joint photographs with Sanjhali Soren and death certificate of Pakku Baski. 8. The learned Family Court Judge has minutely examined these documentary evidences produced by both the parties and observed in paragraph no.14 of the judgment under challenge, as under: "l4. From the documentary evidence filed on behalf of the petitioner; I find that Ext.1 is a voter list of Poraiyahat assembly constituency of year 1994-95 from serial no.226 to 240, it appears that at serial no.233 O.P's name is mentioned as husband of petitioner and evidence of the P.W.2 (petitioner) vide para-12 in her evidence dt.18.08.12 of cross-examination she has stated that her marriage was solemnized about 15 years ago 'which is proved by voter list. As per her evidence her marriage was solemnized in the year, 1997 approaching in the year 1995. Documents which were filed on behalf of the petitioner and same were marked for identification-I to XI shows that documents marked-I for identification is doctor prescription of the petitioner in which her husband name is mentioned as Churka Marandi which is of the year, 1999. The original photograph and one photo copy of the photograph which are marked as II and III are of the petitioner with O.P and documents mark as IV is the insurance paper of the O.P in which nominee name is written as Sanjhli Kisku (petitioner) and same was issued in the year 1999 which documents shows that O.P has accepted her as a wife since 1999 which is the date of approximate date of marriage as stated by the petitioner in her evidence. The documents mark-V & VI are voter I.D. Card and voter list of the year, 2009 of vill. Mahara, PS. Poraiyahat, Distt. The documents mark-V & VI are voter I.D. Card and voter list of the year, 2009 of vill. Mahara, PS. Poraiyahat, Distt. Godda in which O.P's name is written as the husband of the petitioner. Documents mark-VII is the photo copy of Adhar card of the petitioner in which her husband name is also "written as Churka Marandi (O.P) R/o Vil. Mahara Kathaun, Godda. Documents mark for identification as VIII, IX are the photo copy of the order dt. 09.04.09 to 13.04.09 passed in PCR No. 533/08, which shows that firstly on 13.04.09 petitioner bail application was rejected by J.M., 1st Class and taken into custody on 13.04.09 and thereafter he was released on 20.04.09 by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, vide B.P No.222/09 in the case filed by the petitioner Documents mark IX for identification shows that O.P. has also filed a P.C.R. Case No. 245/09 against the petitioner. The documents mark as X is the application dt. 10.05.13 filed by the petitioner to District Superintendent of Education, Godda for holding the pension gratuity, G.P.S. etc. till the disposal of the above case and in the entering her name in the nominee of the O.P and the documents mark as XI for identification is the notice to the petitioner and O.P. by the office of the District Superintendent of Education of Godda for hearing on the application filed by the petitioner vide marked IX for identification the documents marked for identification as VIII supports the version of the petitioner as mentioned in her evidence para-6 that when he knew that O.P. has keeping the another lady Sanjhli Soren at Gangta, Godda, she filed the above case. On behalf of the petitioner on 20.12.13 the original paper i.e. voter I.D. Card of the petitioner; photograph of the petitioner with O.P photocopy of the Adhar Card and original copy of New India Insurance Company Ltd. issued in the year 1999 in the name of the O.P. in which petitioner is named as nominee. Certified copy of the voter list of the year 1994-95 of Poraiyahat Assembly constituency. In the facts mentioned above though these documents has not been marked exhibited on behalf of the petitioner and since these documents are original therefore same is looked for just decision of the case. Certified copy of the voter list of the year 1994-95 of Poraiyahat Assembly constituency. In the facts mentioned above though these documents has not been marked exhibited on behalf of the petitioner and since these documents are original therefore same is looked for just decision of the case. On behalf of the O.P, Adhar Card of the daughter of O.P Puja Marandi, his alleged wife Sanjhhi Soren, voter I.D., photo of the O.P. with Sanjhhi Soren with daughter and son and death certificate of Pakku Baski which are marked as Ext. 1 to 5 but these documents are not helpful for the O.P since petitioner already stated in her evidence that O.P. is keeping Sanjhli Soren with him and therefore neglecting the petitioner. The death certificate of the Pakku Baski also supports the version of the petitioner in which she has stated in her evidence para-2 after death of Pakku Baski, her marriage was solemnized with the O.P" 9. The learned counsel for the opposite party would contend that Voter ID Card produced by the applicant was a fabricated document and if the case of the applicant has to be accepted that after death of the first wife of the opposite party she was married to him the death certificate of Pakku Baski who died in 2007 would be staring at her face. 10. The documents filed by the applicant are the official documents. The opposite party has also filed similar documents, but then, what he has failed to do is to offer an explanation how the applicant was made nominee in the official records particularly the insurance papers and the provident fund. The case set-up by the applicant is that when first wife of the opposite party became ill with consent of the first wife he solemnized marriage with her. Whether such marriage within the tribal community would be permissible or not and was valid, void or voidable are not the issues before me. In law, what the Court is required to see is whether the parties were accepted by the society as spouse and they had voluntarily cohabited. All relationships of living together may not amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to avail the benefits in law, but definitely, in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure strict proof of marriage is not necessary. 11. All relationships of living together may not amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to avail the benefits in law, but definitely, in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure strict proof of marriage is not necessary. 11. The applicant has stated that she cohabited with Churka Marandi in his house for about 15 years. The witnesses examined by her have also supported her on this issue. There is evidence on record that around 2007-2008 Churka Marandi started living with Sanjhali Soren in a different house. The long cohabitation of Churka Marandi with the applicant living together as man and woman, even without performance of essential rituals of the marriage, would give rise to a presumption that the applicant was living with him as wife. It is well-settled that strict proof of marriage is not a pre-condition for grant of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The presumption is of course rebuttable but a heavy burden lies on the -person who seeks to deny the relationship. The subsequent cohabitation of Churka Marandi with Sanjhali Soren and birth of two child do not establish that the applicant was not living with him for a long period of about 15 years before she was kicked out by him from home. The presumption of cohabitation as husband and wife is also not rebutted by his subsequent cohabitation with Sanjhali Soren. In "Rajnesh v. Neha" (2021) 2 SCC 324 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that a man should not be allowed to benefit from legal loopholes, by enjoying the advantages of a de facto marriage, without undertaking the duties and obligation of marriage. 12. The documents filed by the opposite party appear to contradict his own case. For example, he says that his marriage with Sanjhali Soren was solemnized in the year 2008 but a daughter was born in the year 2007. He has failed to explain the incriminating materials against him. The judgment in PCR Case No.533 of 2008/TR No.459 of 2014 on which the opposite party has placed reliance was not on merits rather the witnesses including the applicant herself did not appear in the Court to depose and accordingly her complaint was dismissed. 13. He has failed to explain the incriminating materials against him. The judgment in PCR Case No.533 of 2008/TR No.459 of 2014 on which the opposite party has placed reliance was not on merits rather the witnesses including the applicant herself did not appear in the Court to depose and accordingly her complaint was dismissed. 13. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is intended to provide immediate relief to the applicant is predicated on two conditions: (i) the husband has sufficient means, and (ii) neglects to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself. 14. The object behind section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to ensure that a wife, minor children and old parents do not suffer in destitution. In "Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal" (1978) 4 SCC 70 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "9. This provision is a measure a/social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advance the cause - the cause of the derelicts." 15. The opposite party was working as headmaster and possessed landed properties. In view of his earnings and standing in the society, award of Rs.4000/- per month for maintenance to the applicant was quite reasonable and not excessive. While holding so, I have in mind the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on quantum of maintenance in a catena of judgments including the one in "Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan" (2015) 5 SCC 705 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "14 It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that a woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands that there have to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The statute commands that there have to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance 'within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for wife’s right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right. " 16. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction is hedged with limitations and unless it is shown that the findings recorded by the Court below were contrary to the records, rendered in ignorance of the settled law or perverse, the revisional Court would not interfere in the matter. In "Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar" (1987) I SCC 288 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that while exercising revisional jurisdiction minute examination of the evidences laid before the Court below is not permissible. In "Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar" (1987) I SCC 288 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that while exercising revisional jurisdiction minute examination of the evidences laid before the Court below is not permissible. The law on the subject which has crystallized from the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court indicates that while the Courts may look into the factual matrix of the case, a revisional jurisdiction should normally be exercised on a question of law. 17. After examining the materials on record and having considered the rival contentions, I do not find any ground to interfere in the matter and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No.1593 of 2016 is dismissed. 18. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned through 'Fax'.