1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar waives service of rule on behalf of respondent no.1 and learned APP, Ms. Monali Bhatt waives service of rule on behalf of respondent no.2.

2. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks to challenge the proceedings filed by respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by filing Criminal Application No.369 of 2013 as well as order passed below Exh.6 on 23.4.2014 by the learned Family Court Judge, Vadodara, granting interim maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as being illegal, arbitrary, void, suffering from total non-application of mind and bad in law.

3. According to the petitioner, he married with Hiral Mahbubani alias Bharati Thandani and due to incompatibility, out of mutual consent, both were divorced and a divorce decree was passed by learned Family Court at Bengaluru in MC No.17 of 2006. According to him, thereafter the petitioner and respondent met and, after couple of meetings, both agreed to get married. It is contended that as per custom of the community, the maiden name of the respondent was changed to Harshita Mahbubani, after marriage with the petitioner.

3.1 It is contended by the petitioner that he was told by the respondent wife and her parents that respondent was earlier married to one Mr.Viresh Bhagwan Dariyanani in January 2003 in Mumbai and it has been registered at Vadodara with Registrar of Marriages on 31.1.2003 and, thereafter, the respondent lived with her the then husband in Spain. It is also contended that the petitioner was informed that the respondent and the said Viresh Dariyanani got consent divorce and respondent was eligible for the marriage with the petitioner. According to them, thereafter, the petitioner and the respondent got married and wedding ceremony was held at Bengaluru, which was attended by a few hundred people from the petitioner side and only by eight persons from the respondent side, which included parents and brother of the respondent. It is contended that the respondent and her parents reasoned out that the evil eyes of the petitioner and relatives would ruin their daughter’s marriage. He has also contended that entire expenses of the marriage was borne by himself and he has given jewellery worth Rs.25 Lacs to the respondent.

3.2 It is contended that post-marriage, respondent started residing with the petitioner’s family in their Cox Town house Bengaluru, and for the petitioner it was like living life with different persons altogether. It is also contended that the respondent would always be on the phone with her brother and mother, and the petitioner was surprised by the insistence of the respondent that she be sent to her home town at least once a month. It is also contended that the respondent had made several trips to Vadodara and her behaviour with the members of the family had gone from bad to worse and the respondent had stopped conversing with the petitioner. The respondent had not even allowed the petitioner to get near her. It is also contended that there was a demand made by the father of the petitioner to separate his daughter and the petitioner from the joint family and part with some property to his daughter and there was also demand of money to be advanced for their requirement in Vadodara. According to him, he had no option but to oblige. It is also contended that father of the petitioner parted with his residential property along with a sum of Rs.25 Lacs that were deposited in several installments in ICICI Bank account, which was jointly held by the respondents and her mother and these deposits were made by the petitioner pursuant to the demand made by the father of the respondent. It is also contended that the after the arrival of the respondent in Bengaluru, nothing changed in the life of the petitioner and her mother also arrived in Bengaluru and, thereafte