HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 814/2013

Smt.Sohani

----Petitioner

Versus

Shambhu Lal

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Ms. Yogita Mohanani

For Respondent(s)

:

None present

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

12/05/2022

The petitioner has preferred this revision petition for the

following relief :-

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon`ble Court will be pleased to

send for the record of the lower court, peruse the same & after

perusal set aside the order dismissing the application of the

petitioner u/s. 125 Cr. P.C., order for awarding the maintenance etc.

to the petitioner or pass any other orders that this Hon`ble Court

deems fit & proper.”

Despite service, none appears for the respondent.

Counsel for the petitioner has shown para-9 of the impugned

order, which reads as follows :-

“i{kdkjksa ds e/; ;g rF; gSa fd izkFkhZ;k vizkFkhZ dh ukrk;r iRuh

gSA vizkFkhZ ,u-,-M- 1 Jh 'kEHkwyky us viuh izfrijh{kk esa ;g rF;

Lohdkj fd;k gSa fd izkFkhZ;k Jherh lksguh ls mlus ukrk fookg

fd;k FkkA iwoZ esa izkFkhZ;k us vizkFkhZ ds fo:) /kkjk&125 nz-iz-la- ds

varxZr izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr fd;k FkkA izkFkZuk i= dk fuLrkj.k vkns'k

fnukad 04-10-1997 izn'kZ&, 2 ds }kjk gqvk FkkA ml vkns'k esa fo}ku

(2 of 6)

[CRLR-814/2013]

vij eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] ek.Myx< us ;g ekuk Fkk fd izkFkhZ;k

Jherh lksguh vizkFkhZ dh 'kknh'kqnk iRuh ugha gS vkSj bl dkj.k

izkFkhZ;k vizkFkhZ ls dksbZ Hkj.k&iks"k.k HkRrk izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh

ugha gSA”

Counsel for the petitioner submits that ‘nata’ marriage is

admitted between the parties but at the same time the learned

trial court has proceeded declaring the marriage to be illegal,

thus, dismissing the application for maintenance under Section

125 Cr. P.C.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of

Hon`ble Apex Court in Badshah Vs. Sou. Urmila Badshah

Godse & Anr., passed on 18.10.2013 in Criminal Miscellaneous

Petition No.19530/2013 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.)

No.8596/2013; relevant portion whereof reads as follows :-

“10. Before we deal with the aforesaid submission, we would like to refer

two more judgments of this Court. First case is known as Dwarika Prasad Satpathy

vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit & Anr.[3] In this case it was held:

“The validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceeding

under s.125 Cr.P.C. is to be determined on the basis of the evidence

brought on record by the parties. The standard of proof of marriage in

such proceeding is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under

section 494 of the IPC. If the claimant in proceedings under s.125 of the

Code succeeds in showing that she and the respondent have lived

together as husband and wife, the court can presume that they are legally

wedded spouse, and in such a situation, the party who denies the marital

status can rebut the presumption. Once it is admitted that the marriage

procedure was followed then it is not necessary to further probe into

whether the said procedure was complete as per the Hindu Rites in the

proceedings under S.125,Cr.P.C. From the evidence which is led if the

Magistrate is prima facie satisfied with regard to the performance of

marriage in proceedings under S.125, Cr.P.C. which are of summary

nature strict proof of performance of essential rites is not required.

It is further held:

It is to be remembered that the order passed in an application under

section 125 Cr.P.C. does not finally determine the rights and obligations

of the parties and the said section is enacted with a view to provide

summary remedy for providing maintenance to a wife, children and

(3 of 6)

[CRLR-814/2013]

parents. For the purpose of getting his rights determined, the appellant

has also filed Civil Suit which is spending before the trial court. In such a

situation, this Court in S.Sethurathinam Pillai vs. Barbara alias Dolly

Sethurathinam, (1971) 3 SCC 923, observed that main