ORDER :

1. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition for the following relief:

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court will be pleased to send for the record of the lower court, peruse the same and after perusal set aside the order dismissing the application of the petitioner u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. order for awarding the maintenance etc. to the petitioner or pass any other orders that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.”

2. Despite service, none appears for the respondent.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has shown Para-9 of the impugned order, which reads as follows:

^^i{kdkjksa ds e/; ;g rF; gSa fd ÁkFkhZ;k vÁkFkhZ dh ukrk;r iRuh gSA vÁkFkhZ ,uŒ,ŒMŒ 1 Jh 'kEHkwyky us viuh Áfrijh{kk esa ;g rF; Lohdkj fd;k gSa fd ÁkFkhZ;k Jherh lksguh ls mlus ukrk fookg fd;k FkkA iwoZ esa ÁkFkhZ;k us vÁkFkhZ ds fo:) /kkjk&125 nŒÁŒlaŒ ds varxZr ÁkFkZuk&i= ÁLrqr fd;k FkkA ÁkFkZuk i= dk fuLrkj.k vkns'k fnukad 04-10-1997 Án'kZ ,&2 ds }kjk gqvk FkkA ml vkns'k esa fo}ku vij eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] ek.Myxढ us ;g ekuk Fkk fd ÁkFkhZ;k Jherh lksguh vÁkFkhZ dh 'kknh'kqnk iRuh ugha gS vkSj bl dkj.k ÁkFkhZ;k vÁkFkhZ ls dksbZ Hkj.k&iks"k.k HkRrk ÁkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh ugha gSA**

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that ‘nata’ marriage is admitted between the parties but at the same time the learned trial court has proceeded declaring the marriage to be illegal, thus, dismissing the application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Badshah vs. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse and Another, passed on 18.10.2013 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 19530/2013 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8596/2013; relevant portion whereof reads as follows:

“10. Before we deal with the aforesaid submission, we would like to refer two more judgments of this Court. First case is known as Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another In this case it was held:

“The validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceeding under s.125 Cr.P.C. is to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties. The standard of proof of marriage in such proceeding is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under section 494 of the IPC. If the claimant in proceedings under s.125 of the Code succeeds in showing that she and the respondent have lived together as husband and wife, the court can presume that they are legally wedded spouse, and in such a situation, the party who denies the marital status can rebut the presumption. Once it is admitted that the marriage procedure was followed then it is not necessary to further probe into whether the said procedure was complete as per the Hindu Rites in the proceedings under S.125, Cr.P.C. From the evidence which is led if the Magistrate is prima facie satisfied with regard to the performance of marriage in proceedings under S.125, Cr.P.C. which are of summary nature strict proof of performance of essential rites is not required.

It is further held:

It is to be remembered that the order passed in an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties and the said section is enacted with a view to provide summary remedy for providing maintenance to a wife, children and parents. For the purpose of getting his rights determined, the appellant has also filed Civil Suit which is spending before the trial court. In such a situation, this Court in S. Sethurathinam Pillai vs. Barbara alias Dolly Sethurathinam, (1971) 3 SCC 923, observed that maintenance under section 488, Cr.P.C. 1898 (similar to Section 125, Cr.P.C.) cannot be denied where there was some evidence on which conclusion for grant of maintenance could be reached. It was held that order passed under Section 488 is a summary order which does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties; the decision of the criminal Court that there was a valid marriage between the parties will not op