1. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.04.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Guwahati in F.C. (Crl.) No. 17/2016. By the said judgment, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court granted maintenance @ Rs. 7000/- per month in favour of the respondent.

2. The respondent/first party filed an application under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court praying for granting maintenance. The respondent/first party stated in her petition that she was in love with the present petitioner for long time. They were also in sexual relationship and the respondent became pregnant through the petitioner. She got her pregnancy terminated by consuming tablet provided by the petitioner. The respondent was insisting the petitioner to marry her, but the petitioner was delaying and postponing the marriage and ultimately decided to marry the respondent and on 25.07.2014 marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized in the house of the maternal uncle of the respondent. After marriage, they remained for about 18 days in the house of the said maternal uncle of the respondent and thereafter the petitioner left the respondent. The respondent came to know that the petitioner developed elicit relation with another woman and ultimately started avoiding the respondent and did not even take her call. Finding no other way, the respondent filed criminal proceeding under the domestic violence act and also the petition under Section 125 CrPC claiming maintenance.

3. The petitioner as second party contested the petition, interalia, on the ground that there was no relationship of husband and wife between the petitioner and the respondent, as no marriage was solemnized between them. According to the respondent, story of marriage was a mere concoction. Both the parties adduced evidence and the learned Family Court on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties granted maintenance in favour of the respondent as indicated above.

4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Family Court, the petitioner preferred the instant revision petition.

5. I have heard Mr. T.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Mohammed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State.

6. Mr. Hazarika, leaned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner adduced ample evidence showing that there was no marriage, nor there was any relationship of husband and wife between the parties, but the learned Family Court without considering the evidence adduced by the petitioner, granted maintenance and therefore, the impugned judgment and order suffered from the defect of perversity.

7. Par contra, Mr. Mohammed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the learned Family Court after having considered the evidence adduced by both the parties granted maintenance and as such, this revisional court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that the provision of Section 125 CrPC being a social justice measure, strict proof of marriage is not necessary and that criminal court while deciding a proceeding under Section 125 CrPC cannot question the validity of the marriage nor can decide the validity of the marriage. To buttress the submission Mr. Ahmed, placed reliance on the following decisions :

(i) Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal Vs. Mrs. Veena Kaushal (1978) 4 SCC 70

(ii) Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit reported in AIR 1999 SC 3348

(iii) Balram Yadav Vs. Fulamaniya Yada reported in AIR 2016 SC 2161

(iv) Smt. Maya Devi. Vs. Jagadish Prasad reported in AIR 2007 SC 1426

(v) Shanta @ Usha Devi Vs. B.G. Shivananjappa reported in (2005) 4 SCC 468

(vi) Bakulbai Vs. Gangaram reported in (1988) 1 SCC 537.

8. From the rival submissions, the sole question fallen for consideration is, whether there was marital relationship between the petitioner and the respondent or in other words whether th