Point of Law : The principles of Hindu Personal Law have developed in an evolutionary way out of concern for all those subject to it so as to make fair provision against destitution. The manifest purpose is to achieve the social objectives for making bare minimum provision to sustain the members of relatively smaller social groups.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short), directed against the judgment and order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2935 of 2015, whereby, the learned Court has awarded monthly amount of Rs.40,000/- towards maintenance to the respondent wife under Section 125 of the Code.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to file present revision application are as under:

2.1 The respondent wife claims that she was married to the petitioner on 5.6.2014, at the Vaijnath Temple, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad according to customary rights and rituals of their caste. Before the marriage, they came into contact through matrimonial website namely Jivansathi.com. Though initially, petitioner husband treated her nicely, thereafter, he started ill-treating her and she was subjected the mental and physical torture and the husband threw her out of matrimonial home at Kapada, State of Andhra Pradesh and she came return back to her parental home at Ahmedabad. According to her case, she having no means for livelihood and was unable to maintain herself, whereas, the petitioner husband is serving as Police Officer in the Sub-Intelligent Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, having salary of Rs.85,000/- p.m and also having immovable properties, living a luxury life and having also no any responsibility to maintain the other person/s except the applicant. Under these circumstances, it is the case of the respondent wife that the petitioner husband neglected to maintain her, as a result of which, she compelled to file a maintenance petition and accordingly, application under Section 125 of the Code was filed claiming maintenance of Rs.50,000/- p.m.

2.2 The application was opposed by the petitioner husband taking the following stand:

(i) That the petition is not maintainable because it does not fall under the purview of Section 125 of the Code. A marriage between the parties was not solemnized as per Hindu rights and rituals and he has denied his relationship with respondent No.1 alleging that, he never entered with any matrimonial alliance with her as claimed by the respondent No.1.

(ii) That the parties have never resided as husband and wife under the same roof and there has never been any cohabitation between the parties.

(iii) That on 05.06.2014, his marriage with one Toral Jhaveri, resident of Jamnagar with whom he married earlier, was subsisting and the competent Court has not passed final decree of divorce. Thus, the alleged marriage as claimed by the wife is null and void.

(iv) That the documents including wedding invitation, photographs and Jivansathi profile, submitted by the wife are completely false, fake and concocted only for the purpose of using it as a supporting proof to buttress the false claim of the marriage.

(v) That the petitioner was married first in the year 2002 with one M. Smitha and said marriage was annulled by consent divorce decree dated 21.02.2009. Thereafter, he was married to one Toral Jheveri, resident of Jamnagar, Gujarat State in the month of May, 2013 and said marriage was also stand no longer and parties took divorce by consent decree dated 31.07.2014.

(vi) That in January, 2014, the petitioner husband met the respondent wife near a shopping mall at Ahmedabad and started conversation on mobile phone. Thereafter, they met of and on when he was in Ahmedabad and at the relevant point of time, the respondent wife expressed strong desire to marry with him as according to her, she was in love with him.

(vii) On 22.07.2014, when he was in Ahmedabad, they met at the residence of the respondent wife, where, he was held captive during the period of 22.07.2014 to 24.07.2014 and the respondent wife and her family members persuaded him for marriage but the petitioner had refused that he was not in a mood to accept the proposal.

(viii) That on 24.07.2014, the responde