JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the order dated 6.12.2014, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh in Lok Adalat in case No. 3/2014, titled as Kiran Bala versus Param Jeet Singh as well as subsequent proceedings instituted under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act.

2. Having received the notices in the instant proceedings, respondents while putting appearance also filed an application bearing CMP No.13409 of 2019, seeking therein permission of this Court to place on record additional documents, which may be relevant for the adjudication of the case at hand.

3. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis order dated 6.12.2014, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, this Court finds that a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act (for short ‘Act’) was filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioner, seeking therein maintenance on account of domestic violence, but it appears that before said proceedings could be taken to its logical end, both the petitioner and respondent No.1 entered into the compromise, as a consequence of which, matter came to be finally listed before the Lok Adalat. On 6.12.2014, petitioner Param Jeet Singh made a statement before the Lok Adalat that he will pay sum of Rs. 4000/- as monthly maintenance and Rs.1500/- as rent to the respondent Kiran Bala. In the aforesaid background, Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat allowed the petition having been filed by respondent No.1and directed the petitioner to pay sum of Rs.4000/- and Rs. 1500/- respectively on account of monthly maintenance and rent. Order dated 6.12.2014 further reveals that at the time of passing of aforesaid order, petitioner also paid sum of Rs. 4000/- in cash and stated before the court below that rent of Rs. 1500/- would be paid by him to the house owner and in future he would pay Rs. 5500/- to respondent No.1 per month. After five years of passing of aforesaid order, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein quashment of order dated 6.12.2014 on the ground that since at the time of passing of order dated 6.12.2014, respondent No.1 was already married to respondent No.2, Sudhir Sharma, she could not have claimed any maintenance from him on account of Domestic Violence Act.

4. However, having carefully perused the provisions contained under Domestic Violence Act, this Court finds no merit in the aforesaid contention of the petitioner. Though, the petitioner has made an attempt to carve out a case that since respondent No.1 was already married with respondent No.2 at the time of passing of order dated 6.12.2014, he is not liable to pay any maintenance in terms of order dated 6.12.2014, but it is none of his case that on 6.12.2014 respondent No.1 was not his legally wedded wife, rather material available on record clearly reveals that factum with regard to marriage interse petitioner and respondent No.1 stands duly admitted by the petitioner. Material available on record further reveals that after filing of proceedings in Domestic Violence Act, petitioner filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, praying therein for annulment of marriage, wherein he specifically took a stand that since respondent No.1 solemnized marriage with him during subsistence of her earlier marriage, marriage solemnized interse him and respondent No.1 be declared as null and void. Material available on record further reveals that prior to filing of aforesaid petition for annulment of marriage, petitioner had filed petition for divorce, but same was withdrawn. If the petition for divorce as well as annulment are read in entirety, it clearly suggests that factum with regard to subsistence of earlier marriage inter