ORDER

1. This application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against order dated 16.7.2012 passed by Magistrate, Gram Nyayalaya Balaghat in MJC No.36/2010 and order dated 3.12.2015 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat in Criminal Revision No.54/2015, by which Courts below have directed the applicant to pay 2 M.Cr.C No.30262/2023 monthly maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that although the order of maintenance was passed by Gram Nyayalaya on 16.7.2012 and the Revision was filed on 12.2.2014 and the Revision was dismissed on 3.12.2015 but since there is no period of limitation for filing an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C., therefore belated filing of application even after nine years of the dismissal of Revision will not make the present application not maintainable or barred by time. It is further submitted that the trial Court had given a finding that the marriage of respondent with the applicant did not take place in the Temple and even the respondent could not point out the rituals which were performed at the time of marriage, therefore it was held that respondent has failed to prove that her marriage with the applicant took place in the Temple. However, on account of the fact that respondent had given birth to a child and since the applicant and respondent were residing as husband and wife for considerable long time, therefore respondent has been held to be entitled for maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that applicant is much younger to the respondent. Since applicant is Patel by caste and belongs to a very respectable family of the village, therefore respondent was making false allegations against the applicant. Respondent had also lodged an FIR against the applicant for offence under section 376 of IPC for which applicant was tried by the J.J.B. as a juvenile and ultimately, he has been acquitted. However, it is fairly conceded by counsel for the applicant that she is not in possession of judgment passed by J.J.B. and also does not know about the reasons for acquittal of the applicant. It is further submitted that since father of the applicant is a rich person having 20 acres of land, therefore applicant has been falsely implicated. However, it is submitted that applicant is a labourer working as a labour in Nagpur.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

4. The only bone of contention of counsel for the applicant is that since the respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant, therefore application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the applicant.

6. The trial Court has not given a specific finding that the respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the applicant. However, the findings are that the respondent could not prove the rituals as well as the fact that marriage was performed in the Temple but later on trial Court has given a finding that since the applicant and respondent were living as husband and wife for considerable long time and the respondent has also given birth to a child, therefore respondent is entitled for maintenance.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Kamala and Others v. M.R. Mohan Kumar reported in (2019) 11 SCC 491 has held as under :--

"15. Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in the proceedings under section 125 CrPC, such strict standard of proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy. In Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit, (1999) 7 SCC 675 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1345, this Court held that

“27. … the standard of proof of marriage in a section 125 proceeding is not as strict as is required in a trial for an offence under section 494 IPC. The learned Judges explained the reason for the aforesaid finding by holding that an order passed in an application under section 125 does not