JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Yamuna Nagar, vide which application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') was allowed and maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month was awarded to be paid to the respondent.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 22.09.1996 according to Hindu/Sikh rites and rituals. Out of this wedlock, no child was born. However, matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondent. The learned Family Court vide order dated 28.02.2024 granted maintenance allowance of Rs.6,000/- per month in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. can only be invoked by a legally wedded wife. The petitioner is Muslim whereas the marriage, as alleged by the respondent, took place in Gurudwara revered by Sikh community. Nothing on the record reflects that the marriage was solemnised and essential ceremonies were performed in furtherance of the same. As such, it is evident that no legally valid marriage subsists between the petitioner and respondent. He further relies upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Vs. State of Gujarat and others, 2005 (2) RCR (Crl.) 190, to contend that only legally wedded wife is entitled to maintenance from her husband. Furthermore, the respondent is merely a tenant of the petitioner, who is misusing the law to usurp his property with mala fide intentions.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record with his able assistance, this Court is of the opinion that the following questions require adjudication:

(i) Whether strict proof of marriage is required to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?

(ii) Whether prolonged cohabitation as husband and wife without proof of a valid marriage qualifies for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

5. The legislative intent behind the provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C is to provide speedy assistance and social justice to women, children and infirm parents. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. were enacted as a measure to further social justice and protect dependent women, children and parents, which also fall within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. Being alive to the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that strict proof of marriage cannot be made a condition precedent for claiming maintenance under the provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C., as it would be antithetical to the legislative intent behind the same. In Dwarika Parsad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit (1999) 7 SCC 675, a two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, speaking through Justice M.B. Shah, has made the following observations:

"13. Hence, in our view from the evidence which is led if the Magistrate is prima facie satisfied with regard to the performance of marriage in proceedings under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which are of summary nature, strict proof of performance of essential rites is not required. Either of the parties aggrieved by the order of maintenance under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 can approach the civil court for declaration of status as the order passed under Section 125 does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties. "

6. Further, the reliance place by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya's case (supra) is unfounded as the marriage between parties therein was proved to have been solem