1. This first appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the order dated 3.5.2014 passed by the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, in Case No. 204/2011 (Smt. Radha Lakhera v. Rajkumar Raghuvanshi {Lakhera}).

2. Vide impugned order, an application, moved by Smt. Radha Lakhera and her minor daughter Priyanka Lakhera seeking maintenance under section 125 of CrPC, has been allowed and Court directed that present appellant, who was non-applicant before the Family Court, shall pay monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,500/- per month in favour of applicant No. 1-Smt. Radha Lakhera and Rs. 2,500/- per month for maintenance of applicant No. 2 Kumari Priyanka Lakhera @ Gungun.

3. It is appellant’s contention that in fact, marriage of respondent No.1 was solemnized with his elder brother Kamlesh Lakhera on 2.7.2002 as per Hindu coustoms and traditions and therefore, respondent No. 1 is neither his legally married wife, nor respondent No. 2 is his daughter. It is also submitted that that since there is no decree of divorce between respondent No. 1 and Kamlesh Lakhera, therefore, respondent No. 1 cannot be deemed to be wife of the appellant fastening responsibility to pay maintenance. It is submitted that learned Family Court has not appreciated the evidence which has come on record, in a proper manner and in fact, his elder brother Kamlesh Lakhera has already filed an application under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights with respondent No. 1. It is also submitted that no documentary evidence has been produced by respondent No. 1 to support her contention that she is married wife of the present appellant. In view of such facts, prayer has been made to accept the appeal and set aside the order dated 3.5.2014.

4. Perusal of record from the learned Family Court and the statements given by the applicant, her witnesses, pointed out that as per Ex. P/6 and Ex. P/7, present appellant, who has been marked as 'A' and 'E' respectively, has been shown performing ring ceremony with respondent No. 1, who has been marked as 'B' in Ex. P/6. Similarly, in Ex. P/9, present appellant has been shown applying Betrothal Sindoor (vermilion) in the hair- parting (maang) of respondent No. 1. As per Ex. P/5, doctor had opined on 12th November, 2007 that Kamlesh is a case of Erectile Dysfunction (E. D).

5. As per order-sheet dated 14.9.2011 (Ex. P/13) of Case No. 06/2010 - Kamlesh v. Smt. Bittan from the Court of Special Judge (E.C. Act), Banda, it is apparent that learned Presiding Officer of such Court had observed that applicant was not appearing before the Court for last several dates and did not appear on 14.9.2011, therefore, application was dismissed for want of prosecution.

6. Smt. Radha Lakhera (P.W. 1) admitted that she belongs to backward community and as per social mores prevalent in their society, there is a provision of Chhod-Chhutti/Talaak' (separation/divorce) and 'Vida-Vivah' with the consent of both the families. She admitted that on 2.7.2002 her marriage was performed with Kamlesh and photographs of such marriage are Ex. P/2 and Ex. P/3. During, her stay with Kamlesh when she discovered that he is impotent, thereafter, she narrated this fact to her family members when it was decided that with the consent of all the family members belonging to both the parties, separation be obtained and on 1.11.2002 as per their religious customs, separation was made and announced in the society. On 2.11.2002, her 'Vida-Vivah' was performed with Rajkumar in presence of members of both the families and photographs of 'Vida-Vivah' are from Ex. P/6 to Ex. P/11. Therefore, from 2.11.2002 Rajkumar became her husband and Kamlesh her brother-in-law. On 1.3.2004, from this wedlock one daughter Priyanka was born. It is submitted that after birth of the girl, Rajkumar started harassing her that she did not produce a boy and started beating her and thereafter sh