Point of Law: Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., such strict standard of proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

Aggrieved against order dated 11.10.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Family Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Cr.M.A. No. 345-D/IV of 2019, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition.

2. Petitioner approached the learned Family Court with an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance from the respondent on the premise that she was legally wedded wife of respondent. Their marriage was solemnised on 20th July, 2018 and was further registered on 23.7.2018. Petitioner alleged her neglect at the hands of respondent. As per the petitioner, she did not have any independent source of income and was totally dependent upon the respondent.

3. Petitioner also filed an additional application for grant of interim maintenance during the pendency of the petition.

4. Respondent contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was only a farce. As per respondent, petitioner had been working as domestic help in the house of respondent since 2014. No ceremony or ritual had taken place for marriage of the parties as is required under the Hindu Law. In order to help the petitioner, respondent had shown her as his wife in the service records and she was also his nominee for the purpose of family pension etc. The factum of registration of marriage of the parties had not been denied by the respondent, however, it was explained that the formality was done only with a purpose to help the petitioner. It had further been submitted that immediately after registration of marriage the parties had executed a customary divorce/release deed on 26.07.2028. A petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was also filed by the parties, but later the petitioner had resiled from making a statement in the said petition. Respondent further submitted that he had paid a sum of Rs.Five Lacs to petitioner for the purpose of discharge of her loan liability at the time of execution of deed of customary divorce/release on 26.07.2018. He had further paid a sum of Rs.two lacs to the petitioner at the time when the petition for mutual divorce was filed. Respondent also claimed to have spent about Rs. fifty lacs for purchasing separate vehicles for son of petitioner and the petitioner and also for renovation of her house. He also claimed to have made entire expenditure of marriage of the daughter of petitioner.

5. Respondent alleged that after registration of marriage with petitioner, he came to know that petitioner was not of good character and was operating a sex racket. When he confronted the petitioner with such facts, he suffered hostility at the hands of the petitioner. Petition for maintenance filed by the petitioner is also stated to be result of her anger.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully.

7. Evidently, respondent did not dispute before the learned Family Court the factum of registration of his marriage with the petitioner on 20.07.2018. Respondent did not even deny the genuineness or authenticity of certificate of marriage issued by the Registrar of Marriages on 23.07.2018. Rather, the respondent admitted that he was a retired Army personnel and had nominated the petitioner as his nominee for the purpose of receipt of family pension and other service benefits after the death of respondent. Another fact, which the respondent disclosed was the filing of petition for dissolution of his marriage with the petitioner by way of mutual consent. He had also come up with a plea that he along with the petitioner had executed a customary divorce/release deed on 26th July, 2018. Respondent has further alleged to have spent a huge sum of money on petitioner and her family members. It was the respondent, who also disclosed in the reply that the petitioner had been working for him as domestic help since 2014.

8. Noticeably, the entire thru