The significant ruling was given by a division bench comprising Justice K.T. Thomas and Justice M.B. Shah, while dismissing appeals by a husband against the grant of maintenance to his wife and daughter. The judges also imposed a cost of Rs 5,000 on the husband.

Bidyut Prava Dixit (the respondent-wife), filed an application on March 15, 1989 under section 125 Cr.P.C. before a Judicial magistrate at Nayagarh in Orissa for maintenance. The magistrate allowed the application by an order dated June 28, 1993 and granted a monthly maintenance of Rs 400 to her and Rs 200 to her daughter with effect from March 15, 1989.

The order of the magistrate was challenged by the husband, Dwarika PrasadSatpathy, in a criminal revision before a sessions judge at Puri. The sessions judge by his order dated April 19, 1994 partly allowed the revision application of the husband and set aside the maintenance granted to the wife. However, the judge maintained the grant of Rs 200 per month to the minor daughter till she attained majority subject to future enhancement.

The appellant then approached the Orissa High Court against the judgment of the sessions judge. The wife also filed a revision. The High Court dismissed the revision filed by the husband and allowed that of the wife.The Court held that the parties were residents of Kantilo village and at the relevant time the appellant was a bachelor and working as a junior employment officer at Nayagarh. The appellant was a friend of the elder brother of the respondent and frequently visited their house.

The appellant fell in love with the respondent. It also came on record that he was proposing a premarital sexual relationship with the respondent, which waspersistently refused by her.

The appellant then took a vow in a temple to marry her and thereby won her faith. The respondent became pregnant and insisted on immediate marriage, which the appellant refused on some pretext or the other.

The respondent took various actions including writing to various authorities including the then Chief Minister. Ultimately, when she went on a hunger-strike in front of the office of the appellant, their marriage was solemnised with the intervention of the sub-divisional officer and other persons in the temple. Even after marriage, the appellant forced his wife to stay with her parents on the ground that his father might not accept her as a bride. At that stage she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy. Within three-four days there after she gave birth to a girl, who had been made the respondent no. 2 in the case. The parties continued to live separately as before. In proceedings under section 125 Cr. P.C., the appellant denied pre-marital sexual relations with therespondent. He also asserted that he was forced to undergo some sort of marriage with the respondent.

The trial magistrate found the marriage legal and granted the relief. But the sessions judge held the marriage as illegal and did not give the relief to the wife. He, however, accepted the plea of the wife that the child was born because of pre-marital relations and confirmed the grant of maintenance to the child. The Supreme court in its judgment held the marriage as legal. The court also held that the child was born out of the wedlock, when the appellant, who had disowned the child, refused to undergo a DNA test.

``In our view, the validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. is to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties. The standard of proof of marriage in such proceedings is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence of bigamy under section 494 of the Indian penal code,'' the judges observed.

The judges saidthat once it was admitted that the marriage procedure was followed then it was not necessary to further probe into whether the procedure was complete as per the Hindu rites in the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C.