K.U Chandiwal, J.:—Heard.
2. Concurrent findings of award of maintenance to respondent Smt. Urmila at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- and to the daughter Shivanjali at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month is questioned.
3. The petitioner submits, that he has already married with Smt. Shobha on 17.2.1979 From the said marriage, a daughter, aged 20 years and son, now aged 17 years, are born. The daughter is now given in marriage. According to him, the respondent had already married to Popat Pophale and thereafter there is no evidence of her divorce from said Popat and entering into marriage with the petitioner. The petitioner has also questioned paternity of the child.
4. Learned Counsel, in order to stress his point, placed reliance to the judgment in the matter of Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988 Mah.LR 548 (SC) wherein in paragraph no. 8, the Apex Court has observed as under:
“8. We therefore, hold that the marriage of a woman in accordance with the Hindu rites with a man having a living spouse is a complete nullity in the eye of law and she is not entitled to the benefit of S. 125 of the Code. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court some money was paid to the appellant in pursuance of an interim order. The respondent shall not be permitted to claim for its refund.”
The Apex Court had held, the marriage of such lady is in contravention of Section 5(1)(i) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
5. The evidence before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class and, particularly, in the cross examination indicated, knowledge of divorce of respondent with Popat to the petitioner. Since he has accepted of such divorce in his cross examination, it is not open subsequently for him to challenge the same.
6. The proceedings are admittedly for maintenance in terms of Section 125 Cr.P.C The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit (AIR 1999 SC 3348), dealt with scope of Section 125 of Cr.P.C and indicated that the standard of proof of marriage in such proceedings is not as strict as is required in a trial of offense under Section 494 of IPC. It was observed, it is to be remembered that the order passed in an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C does not finally determine rights and obligations of the parties and the said Section provides summary remedy for providing maintenance to wife, children and parents. Identical position was indicated in the matter of S. Sethurathinam Pillai v. Barbara Alias Dolly Sethurathinam, (1971 (3) SCC 923). In the matter of Chanmuniya (S) v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr…. (S), reported in ((2011) 1 SCC 141) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again reiterated the legal position and observed, a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to term ‘wife’ to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Considering this legal position, the award of maintenance questioned does not call for interference. Learned Counsel has not pressed is relief for D.N.A test as the same is subject of independent civil proceedings.
Criminal Writ Petition (No. 144/2012) dismissed.