1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.851 OF 2000 Balu Vishnu Shinde ...Petitioner vs. Anusaya @ Akkatai Balu Shinde & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.I.M.Khairdi i/b Mr.V.B.Naik for the petitioner Mr.Dilip Bodake for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 8, 2009 P.C. 1 The petitioner-husband has taken an exception to the order passed under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code). The petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.400/- per month to his wife from the date of institution of the application. 2 The trial court rejected the application by holding that the first respondent has not established that she is a legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The Sessions Court has reversed the said finding in the revision application and granted maintenance. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the averments made by the first respondent in application under section 125 of the said Code which was filed in the year 1996. He pointed out that in the said application, the first respondent came out with a case that she married to the petitioner 8 years back i.e in the year 1978. He pointed out that the case of the petitioner was that in May 1978, the petitioner had married to one Sushila. He invited my attention to the 2 certified copy of school leave certificate which records the date of birth of the daughter as 1 st June 1977. He submitted that the said fact defeats the case of the respondent that her marriage was solemnised in the year 1978. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is perverse. 4 I have carefully considered the submissions. Perusal of the Judgment of the learned Magistrate shows that apart from the first respondent one Gajanan was examined as a witness. The evidence adduced by the first respondent and her witness is that in the year 1972, her marriage with the petitioner was solemnised at village Andharwadi Taluka Karad. She deposed regarding performance of religious rites of the marriage. The same was the case made out by the witness Gajanan examined by the first respondent. The trial court disbelieved the case of the marriage on two grounds. The first ground in the application under section 125 of the said Code, the first respondent came out with a case that she married in the year 1978 and the school leaving certificate shows the date of birth of the daughter as 1 st June 1977. The learned Magistrate also noted that the case of the petitioner that he married to Sushila on 10 th May 1978 has not been disputed. 5 The Sessions Court has considered the evidence of the first respondent and her witness Gajanan and accepted the contention that the first respondent has proved that she married in the year 1978. It must be noted here that there is a vague statement made in a petition under section 125 of the said Code that the first respondent married to the petitioner prior to 8 years and therefore, one cannot jump to the conclusion that the year of marriage can be taken as 1978. The learned Sessions has 3 observed that entry of the date of the birth of the daughter of the first respondent is made in the year 1982. Though there may not be a specific assertion in the application filed by the first respondent that marriage was solemnised in the year 1972, the evidence adduced by herself and her witness shows that the marriage was solemnised in the year 1972. 6 The remedy under section 125 of the said Code is a summary remedy. Even if there is evidence on record to show that the applicant and the respondent in application under section 125 of the said Code stayed together as husband and wife for sufficiently long time, the court can presume that there is a valid marriage. 7 It is well settled that any finding recorded as regards the status of the parties in the proceedings under section 125 of the said Code is not binding on the civil court and notwithstanding such finding, the parties can always approach of the civil court by filing a suit or proceedings for declaration. 8 In the circumstances, there is no reason to upset the finding of the Sessions Court as regards the maintenance which is fixed at the rate of Rs.400/- per month. Hence, there is no merit in the petition and the same is rejected. JUDGE