CRL. REV. P. 129/2021

Page 1 of 16

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 09^thNOVEMBER, 2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

+

CRL. REV. P. 129/2021

SUNDER LAL SAINI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Ram Kishan Saini, Advocate

versus

MEENA SAINI

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms. Upasana Nath, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1.

This petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is for setting aside the order

dated 03.07.2020, passed by Ld. Principal Judge, Family Courts, Shahdara

District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in C.C. No. 359/2018, wherein the

Ld. Trial Court granted maintenance of Rs. 4200/- per month to be paid by

the Petitioner herein to the Respondent.

2.

The facts leading up to the filing of this petition are as follows:

i.

It is stated that the Petitioner herein was married to the

Respondent as per Hindu Rites and Customs on 18.11.1999. In

September 2011, the Respondent herein filed a petition under

Section 125 Cr.P.C before the Ld. Trial Court. A Reply to that

petition was filed by the Petitioner on 29.05.2013 stating that

the Respondent as well as the Petitioner were already married

to their respective spouses at time of the alleged marriage

between the two parties, and therefore, the Respondent was not

CRL. REV. P. 129/2021

Page 2 of 16

entitled to any maintenance on the ground that the alleged

marriage was null and void.

ii.

The Ld. Trial Court on 08.10.2013 dismissed the

Respondent‟s Application for Interim Maintenance stating

despite the Petitioner herein having admitted to physical

relations between him and the Respondent herein, the scope of

Section 125 Cr.P.C. was limited. Accordingly, the Respondent

was not entitled to interim maintenance.

iii.

Between 16.11.2018 to 24.03.2020, the Petitioner (RW-1)

and the Respondent (PW-1), along with other witnesses, were

examined. The Petitioner allegedly deposed that he had been

married on 10.05.1980 with Smt. Dharamwati and that his

marriage was still subsisting. This was supported by Smt.

Dharamwati during her examination as RW-2.

iv.

On 03.07.2020, the Ld. Trial Court held that, after perusing

the material on record, there was a clear indication that the

parties in question had been living together as husband and

wife, and had conveyed the same to the society at large. The

Ld. Trial Court, placing reliance on Chanmuniya v. Virender

Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141, held that a

presumption of a matrimonial relationship arose and that a

poor woman could not be left to vagrancy and destitution on

the basis of mere technicalities. The Ld. Trial Court also noted

that The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005, also stipulated that a woman in a live-in relationship

would be entitled to maintenance. Accordingly, the Ld. Trial

CRL. REV. P. 129/2021

Page 3 of 16

Court directed the Petitioner herein to pay Rs. 4200/- per

month to the Respondent as maintenance.

v.

The Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the

impugned Order dated 03.07.2020 passed by the Ld. Principal

Judge, Family Court, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts,

New Delhi, and seeking the dismissal of the petition under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed before the Ld. Trial Court by the

Respondent herein with heavy costs.

3.

Mr. Ram Kishan Saini, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has

submitted before this Court that the Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the

Respondent before the Ld. Trial Court is not maintainable as the Petitioner

was already married to Smt. Dharamwati while the Respondent was

married to Man Singh Saini, and therefore, no valid marriage could have

taken place between the Petitioner and the Respondent. Mr. Saini

submitted that the wife of the Petitioner could not conceive. He also

submitted that no divorce had taken place between the Respondent and

Man Singh Saini, and as the relation between the Respo