1. Delay condoned.
2. Special leave granted.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
4. The appellant applied under Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance on the ground that the respondent has neglected to maintain her and their child. The Trial Court believed that the appellant and the respondent are lawfully married and, therefore, she is entitled to maintenance for herself and the child. The Trial Court ordered Rs. 175 as maintenance for the wife and Rs. 125 for the child.
5. Aggrieved by that order the respondent filed a Revision Application before the Sessions Court. In view of the discrepency in the evidence led by the appellant as regards time when the marriage had taken place, the Sessions Court held that the marriage was not proved and, therefore, allowed the Revision Application. The appellant preferred a Revision Petition to the High Court. The High Court partly allowed it and held that only the child was entitled to maintenance as the alleged marriage was not proved. The appellant-wife has, therefore, filed this appeal.
6. In Tamil Nadu, amongst the Hindus, marriage by garlanding each other is permissible and recognised if exchange of garlands has been placed in presence of relatives and friends. The case of the appellant is that in presence of their close relatives, the appellant and the respondent had exchanged garlands in a Ganesh Temple of their village. The appellant had examined P.Ws. 2 and 3 in support of her version. The Trial Court had believed that evidence and held that marriage between the appellant and the respondent was satisfactorily proved. This finding was reversed by the Sessions Court on the ground that there was a discrepency as regards the time when the marriage had taken place whereas P.W. 2 had stated that the marriage was performed at 6.00 p.m. P.W. 3 had stated that it was performed at 4.30. p.m. The marriage had taken place in the year 198(sic) and the witnesses had given evidence in 1992. If in view of long lapse of time there was a small discrepency as regards the time of marriage that can hardly be regarded as a good ground for discarding their evidence. We, therefore accept their evidence and hold that the appellant and the respondent had exchanged garlands with a view to get married and that it was done in presence of near relatives. We also hold that in view of the added provision Section in 7 A in the Hindu Marriage Act as applicable to State of Tamil Nadu that there was a valid marriage between the parties.
7. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside that part of the order passed by the High Court whereby the appellant's petition for maintenance for herself was dismissed and restore the order passed by the Trial Court in that behalf.