JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the learned Family Court, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') was dismissed.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 15.10.2019 and no child was born out of this wedlock. However, matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance which was dismissed by the learned Family Court vide impugned order, stating that a valid marriage does not subsist between the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15.10.2019 according to Hindu rites and rituals in village Rattangarh. The petitioner was treated with utmost cruelty since the very inception of the marriage and was ultimately turned out of the matrimonial home on 18.07.2020. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner does not have an independent source of income while the respondent-husband works as a Muneem in Universe Raju Paints at Ladwa, earning a salary of Rs. 20,000/-. Further, the respondent, in the reply filed by him, failed to take the plea that the petitioner is not his legally wedded wife. As such, he cannot be allowed to take this stance at a later stage in the trial. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deoki Panjhiyara vs. Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad and another 2013 AIR SC 346, Kamala and others vs. M. R. Mohan Kumar 2018(4)R.C.R.(Criminal) 894, this Court in Rohit Chawla vs. Swati 2022(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 854 and the Allahabad High Court in Ram Prakash Achari vs. State of U.P. 2023(160) ALR 607.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record with his able assistance, it transpires that this is the second marriage of the petitioner. The petitioner had obtained a divorce from her husband Rajat Kumar on 27.01.2020, while her marriage to the respondent was solemnized on 15.10.2019. An FIR bearing number 139 dated 13.10.2020 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 IPC was lodged against the respondent wherein he gave a statement admitting that his marriage was duly solemnized with the petitioner. However, at the time of the marriage, the petitioner presented herself as a divorcee, even though a decree of divorce had not yet been issued. Evidently, a decree of nullity was not sought by the respondent after realizing the factum of invalid second marriage. In the absence of such a decree, considering the fact that the parties were cohabiting in a domestic setting, after performance of necessary marriage ceremonies, this Court is bound to draw a conclusion indicating existence of a relationship in the nature of marriage in view of Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011) 1 SCC 141.

5. While it is evident that the marriage between the parties was solemnized during the subsistence of first marriage of the petitioner, which inevitably makes it invalid, the same does not dis entitle her to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The term 'wife' must be given an expansive meaning to realize the social purpose behind it which is to avoid vagrancy and destitution. Furthermore, the wife is bestowed with certain inchoate rights by the virtue of marriage, notwithstanding the possibility of a the same being void ipso jure.

6. A two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and another 2014(1) SCC 188 had held the husband, who performed second marriage after concealing the factum of the first, to be liable to pay maintenance to the second wife in spite of lack of legal validity to their marriage.

'11. No doubt, it is not a case of second marriage but deals with standard of proof under Section 125, Criminal Pr