JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Ashish Chaturvedi & Shri Desh Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Raj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

2. This criminal revision under section 19(4) of Family Court Act, 1984 has been filed against the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad, in Criminal Misc. Case No.388 of 2016 (Priyanka Achari Vs. Ram Prakash Achari), by which the application No.15-B moved by the revisionist in the trial court concerned, challenging the maintainability of the petition filed by the respondent no.2, claiming maintenance has been, rejected.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that as per settled proposition of law of section 125 Cr.P.C. only the legally wedded wife can claim the maintenance from her husband. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad, considered the aadhar card of the opposite party no.2 as only basis to conclude that the opposite party no.2 is prima-facie wife of the revisionist. The opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of one Lavkush Shukla and the decree of divorce has not been taken as per procedure under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. The opposite party no.2 herself alleged to be the second wife of revisionist and no proof of dissolution of her first marriage is ever produced in the concerned court below. Hence the order passed by the court below is perverse and against evidence on record, therefore, it is liable to be set-aside.

4. Per contra learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submitted that opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of revisionist, as the marriage of the revisionist and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 08.06.2010 with their consent as per Hindu Rites and Rituals in the presence of both the families and their relatives etc. and at the time of marriage the father of opposite party no.2 has given gifts according to his capacity. It is further submitted that revisionist has not disclosed the facts that Leelawati Pandey, daughter of Sitaram Pandey was the first wife of the revisionist and after the death of his first wife on 21.06.2009 the revisionist solemnized the marriage with opposite party no.2 on 08.06.2010. The opposite party no.2 was firstly married with Lavkush Shukla on 10.05.2005 and due to some dispute both of them decided to take divorce on the ground of mutual consent and a petition for dissolution of marriage was moved by both the parties in the court of Judge Family Court, Court No.3, Ahamedabad Gujarat. Thereafter, on 15.01.2007 the application for execution of petition for dissolution of marriage was moved by both the parties and their marriage was got dissolved vide order dated 15.01.2007. Thereafter, the revisionist solemnized the marriage with opposite party no.2. In aadhar card, electoral card, pass book of bank etc., the name of revisionist is entered as husband of opposite party no.2 and copies thereof are filed with counter affidavit. The revisionist and his family members physically harassed and beaten the opposite party no.2 on 02.08.2011 at about 5.00 P.M. and detained her in a room. In the night she reached to the house of her parents and narrated the entire story to her family members. Thereafter, a complaint case bearing No.1232 of 2011, under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act was filed at Police Station Kotwali, District Faizabad. Objections were filed by the brother of revisionist Ved Prakash Achari and Deepak Achari and the A.C.J.M.-3 Ayodhya passed the order dated 12.04.2017 in favour of opposite party no.2. Brothers of revisionist namely Ved Prakash Achari and Deepak Achari filed a Criminal Revision, bearing No.41 of 2017 in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Faizabad, which was rejected on merits vide order dated 29.09.2017. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 has filed FIR bearing Case Crime No.1224 of 2011, under sections 498-A, 323, 50