1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3190 OF 2009 Bilal A. Rehman ... Petitioner (Org.Respondent) Vs. Qamer Bilal & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. N.Y.Gupte,Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Mrunalini Deshmukh, I/b. Shri Sushant Chavan,Advocate, for the respondent No.1. Ms.s.V.Gajare, APP,for the Respondent no.2 - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 10th June, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The respondent No.1, who claims to be the wife of the petitioner, filed M.J. Petition No.E-228 of 2009 before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. According to her, they were married in the year 1974 and out of the wedlock, they had two daughters, one of whom is married. The respondent No.1 has contended that she is now aged 70 years and has no income to maintain herself. The petitioner denied that they were married. 2 According to him, he was already married and his marriage is still subsisting. He has also children from that marriage. According to him, the respondent No.1 was also married to another person and she has not been divorced and therefore, there could not be any lawful marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1. According to him, there is no relationship of husband and wife and therefore she is not entitled to get any maintenance. The Family Court, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order dated 30.10.2009 granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of the application i.e. 8.4.2009 pending the petition. The main petition under Section 125 is still pending . The order of interim maintenance is challenged in the present petition by the original respondent. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the alleged Nikahnama about the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent does not bear the signature of any of the parties and it is only a blank proforma. He also pointed out that the affidavit of Qazi in support of the marriage is not reliable because, according to the Qazi, he is holding the post of Qazi for about 20 years, while the alleged marriage took place in 1974 i.e.about 34 years ago and therefore the same Qazi could not have presided over and performed the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent No.1. He also contended that the respondent No.1 has not 3 produced any document or other evidence to show that her earlier marriage was dissolved by divorce. He also stated that the petitioner is willing to undergo DNA test to prove that he is not the father of the two girls who were allegedly born out of this wedlock. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 has produced certain documents in support of the alleged marriage. Even if the affidavit of Qazi and the Nikahnama are not taken into consideration at this stage, there are several documents which indicate that name of the petitioner was recorded as husband of the respondent No.1. The earliest document is the birth certificate dated 15.9.1980 which shows that on 6.3.1979, a female child Saiqua was born to the respondent and her father's name was Bilal Abdul Rehman i.e. th present petitioner. In 1991, the respondent obtained passport wherein petitioner's name is shown as her husband. Saiqua and Musarat, the two girls also obtained the passports wherein the name of the petitioner is shown as their father and name of the respondent is shown as their mother. Certificate of Marriage issued by the Chief Qazi of Mumbai shows that Musarat daughter of the present petitioner was married on 12.1.1995. In all these documents beginning from 1979 onwards, the name of the present petitioner is shown as husband of the respondent No.1.or as father of her two daughters. In view of these documentary evidence, I do not find 4 any reason to interfere in the interim order of maintenance passed by the trial Court. The rival contentions can be tested at the time of trial of the main matter which is at the stage of evidence. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)