AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2.
(2.) FROM the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, contained in Annexure -2, it appears that the proceeding under Sec.125. Cr PC initiated at the instance of the opposite party No. 2 herein, whereby she had prayed for grant of maintenance, was rejected on the ground that she failed to prove that she was legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein Krishna Chandra Jerai. It appears that the learned Magistrate after considering the evidence on record held that it was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the applicant was the legal wife of the petitioner herein. It further appears that in the proceeding before the Magistrate it was admitted by the petitioner herein that both the parties, i.e. the applicant (O.P. No. 2 herein) and the petitioner Krishna Chandra Jerai lived together as husband and wife for pretty long time and it is also admitted that out of their relationship three children were born.
(3.) THOUGH it was held by the learned Magistrate that there was no dispute with regard to the fact that both the parties lived together as husband and wife and three children were born out of their relationship but he rejected the prayer for grant of maintenance under Sec.125, Cr PC on the ground that she failed to prove that she was legally wedded wife of Krishna Chandra Jerai.;