The Court clarified that a second wife whose marriage is void due to the survival of the first marriage is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized the need for strict proof of marriage and the legal sanctity of the marriage ceremony.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - This petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is for setting aside the order dated 03.07.2020, passed by Ld. Principal Judge, Family Courts, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in C.C. No. 359/2018, wherein the Ld. Trial Court granted maintenance of Rs. 4200/- per month to be paid by the Petitioner herein to the Respondent.

2. The facts leading up to the filing of this petition are as follows:

i. It is stated that the Petitioner herein was married to the Respondent as per Hindu Rites and Customs on 18.11.1999. In September 2011, the Respondent herein filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C before the Ld. Trial Court. A Reply to that petition was filed by the Petitioner on 29.05.2013 stating that the Respondent as well as the Petitioner were already married to their respective spouses at time of the alleged marriage between the two parties, and therefore, the Respondent was not entitled to any maintenance on the ground that the alleged marriage was null and void.

ii. The Ld. Trial Court on 08.10.2013 dismissed the Respondent"s Application for Interim Maintenance stating despite the Petitioner herein having admitted to physical relations between him and the Respondent herein, the scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C. was limited. Accordingly, the Respondent was not entitled to interim maintenance.

iii. Between 16.11.2018 to 24.03.2020, the Petitioner (RW-1) and the Respondent (PW-1), along with other witnesses, were examined. The Petitioner allegedly deposed that he had been married on 10.05.1980 with Smt. Dharamwati and that his marriage was still subsisting. This was supported by Smt. Dharamwati during her examination as RW-2.

iv. On 03.07.2020, the Ld. Trial Court held that, after perusing the material on record, there was a clear indication that the parties in question had been living together as husband and wife, and had conveyed the same to the society at large. The Ld. Trial Court, placing reliance on Chanmuniya v. Virender Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141, held that a presumption of a matrimonial relationship arose and that a poor woman could not be left to vagrancy and destitution on the basis of mere technicalities. The Ld. Trial Court also noted that The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, also stipulated that a woman in a live-in relationship would be entitled to maintenance. Accordingly, the Ld. Trial Court directed the Petitioner herein to pay Rs. 4200/- per month to the Respondent as maintenance.

v. The Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the impugned Order dated 03.07.2020 passed by the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi, and seeking the dismissal of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed before the Ld. Trial Court by the Respondent herein with heavy costs.

3. Mr. Ram Kishan Saini, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted before this Court that the Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the Respondent before the Ld. Trial Court is not maintainable as the Petitioner was already married to Smt. Dharamwati while the Respondent was married to Man Singh Saini, and therefore, no valid marriage could have taken place between the Petitioner and the Respondent. Mr. Saini submitted that the wife of the Petitioner could not conceive. He also submitted that no divorce had taken place between the Respondent and Man Singh Saini, and as the relation between the Respondent and her husband were strained, the Petitioner had entered into talks with the parents of the Respondent that she would provide him with a male issue so that his lineage could continue. Consequently, the parties agreed to live together and the Petitioner paid Rs. 1,60,000/- for the same. It was further submitted that the Respondent could not conceive, and therefore, in January 2011, she left the Petitioner and had been residing separately.

4. Mr. Saini, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that the Respondent was a teacher in a private s