certificate, original Matriculation Certificate of Basanta Mallik, his Job Card, Voter Identity Cards as well as Adhar Cards of both the Petitioner as well as said Basanta Mallik clearly establish the marriage between the parties and Basanta Mallik is the son born out of their wedlock. When the Opposite Party denies the marriage, burden lies on him to prove his case. This material aspect was not taken into consideration by learned Judge, Family Court while passing the impugned order. He also relies upon the decisions in the cases of in Basanta Kumar Sahu –v- Bhikari Charan Sahu and others, reported in 1995 (I) OLR 516, Sri Dharma Bahaji Bairi –v- Smt. B. Rajeswari and another, reported in 2008 (Supp.-II) OLR 371, Narayan Meher –v- Mukta Meher and another, reported in 2010 (Supp.-II) OLR 376, Digambar Samal –v- Narmada Mohanty and another, reported in 2015 (II) OLR 1037, Nirmala –v- Rukminibai, reported in AIR 1994 Kar 247 and Mohinder Singh –v- Jaswant Kaur (D) through Lrs. , reported in 2020 (4) CCC 448 (SC) and submits that strict proof of marriage is not necessary for establishing that the Petitioner is the legally married wife of Opposite Party. Living together as husband and wife under one roof, which is recognized by the society, is sufficient to prove that the Petitioner is the legally married wife for grant of maintenance in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. In that view of the matter, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and to remit the matter back to the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak for fresh consideration on the basis of the materials available on record.
