Point of Law: Broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term 'wife' to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a pre-condition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri V.K. Solanki, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri K.K. Rajbhar, the learned A.G.A, for O.P. no.1.

2. Challenge in the present revision purported to be under Section 397/401 of CrPC is to order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun, District Budaun, in Criminal Case No. 1307/2019, (Smt. Tabassum Vs. Mudassir), in the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC, P.S. Wazirganj, District Budaun.

3. Brief facts of the case shorn off unnecessary details set forth in the application purported to be under Section 125 of CrPC is to the effect that the O.P. no.2 being Smt. Tabassum wife of Mudassir Khan and daughter of Wazir Khan, got married with the applicant herein on 11.5.2018 according to the rites and rituals as enshrined under the Muslim Law. Consequent to the solemnization of the marriage, the inlaws of O.P. no.2 as well as the revisionist, who happens to be the husband demanded dowry as according to them, the gifts, which the family of the O.P. no.2 had given to them was not commensurating to the status of the inlaws. Resultantly, threats were being sought to be administered upon O.P. no.2 and she was being harassed in all possible manner. When the O.P. no.2 narrated the entire story to her mother, then the mother of O.P. no.2 along with near relatives approached the revisionist and their parents requesting them that her daughter may not be harassed. It is also narrated in the application purported to be under Section 156(3) CrPC that on 20.9.2018, the inlaws of the O.P. no.2 as well as the husband of O.P. no.2 being the revisionist took O.P. no.2 to Bombay on 27.6.2018 and thereafter consequent to return from Bombay to Sahaswan on 20.9.2018, again O.P. no.2 administered beating and attempts were also made to kill her. Again the process of mediation for creating an environment, whereby the O.P. no.2 and the revisionist may live together peacefully, was undertaken. Again on 23.9.2018, at 8:00 O’clock in the morning beating was administered to O.P. no.2 and all the jewellery, which was available with the O.P. no.2 was taken away by the inlaws and she was ousted from the house with only the cloth, which she was wearing and she was sent from her inlaws’ place in a hired taxi. Constraint with the same, the O.P. no.2, thereafter, preferred an application purported to be under Section 125 CrPC before the court below, which was numbered as Criminal Case No.1307 of 2019, CNR No. UPBN 02-001952-2019, seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/-per month. The said application was presented before the court below on 28.9.2019. On being noticed, the revisionist filed its reply refuting the allegations and the averments contained in the application under Section 125 CrPC instituted by O.P. no.2. The O.P. no.2 also filed necessary documentary evidence in support of her case. Nonetheless, so far as revisionist is concerned, he did not submit any documentary evidence fortifying his stand.

4. Thereafter the court below has now proceeded to pass the order dated 24.10.2021, while granting maintenance to the tune of Rs.5000/- to O.P. no.2 from the date of the filing of application.

5. Aggrieved against the order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun, District Budaun, in Criminal Case No. 1307/2019, (Smt. Tabassum Vs. Mudassir), in the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC, P.S. Wazirganj, District Budaun, now the revisionist is before this Court.

6. Before proceeding further it is apt to reproduce the provisions contained under Section 397/401 CrPC, which reads as under: -

“397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.

(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order,-recorded or passed, and as to t