1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.558 OF 2008. Suresh Sahebrao Patil ... Petitioner. Versus Sow.Sulan W/o Suresh Patil and others ... Respondents. ... Mrs.A.S.Rasal, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.T.Ghute, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 30.07.2009. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges concurrent judgments rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad, in Criminal Misc. Application No.63/1997 and by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, 2 Osmanabad in Criminal Revision Application No. 74/2002, whereby maintenance proceedings initiated by the Respondents came to be decided against him and they have been awarded separate maintenance allowance U/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the Respondents before the learned C.J.M. was that while the Respondent No.1 - Smt. Sulan was residing with her sister by name Shalan at village Tadwala, in or about 1984-85, she came in contact with the petitioner and gradually their intimacy developed. With the result, they entered into wedlock in the year 1985. The petitioner executed an agreement in favour of the Respondent No.1 to maintain her as a wife. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were born out of their matrimonial relationship. The Respondent No.1, however, performed second marriage with one Smt.Sarita when he migrated to Paithan. After receiving the information of the second marriage, the Respondent No.1 made inquiries and came to know that the petitioner and his second wife were residing together and two issues were begotten to 3 the latter. She felt cheated by him. He earns monthly income of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) and is able to pay them separate maintenance allowance. They are, however, unable to maintain themselves. Consequently, they sought separate maintenance allowance by filing proceedings U/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. in the Court of C.J.M.,Osmanabad. 3. The petitioner denied all the material averments made by the Respondents. He denied status of the Respondent No.1 as a lawfully married wife and also denied paternity of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. He contended that the Respondent No.1 was married to one Ramesh Prasade and was residing with him as the legally wedded wife. He contended that the Respondent No.l lateron abandoned the matrimonial home and started residing with a paramour. He alleged that false allegations of matrimonial relationship were levelled against him by the Respondents with ulterior motive to defame him and because his real wife by name Shobha is politically active. He submitted that he has 4 lawfully married Sarita @ Ashabai on 4.4.1986 and their marriage is still subsisting. Consequently, he urged to dismiss the proceedings U/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. 4. The parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of the rival contentions. The learned C.J.M. held that the Respondent No.1 proved herself to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The learned C.J.M. also held that the Respondents proved that the petitioner is father of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Both the Courts came to the conclusion that the petitioner neglected and refused to maintain the Respondents notwithstanding the fact that he has got sufficient means. It is further held that the Respondents are unable to maintain themselves. The learned C.J.M. awarded separate maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) p.m. to each of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. The maintenance order is confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, the petition. 5 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Before I proceed to consider the rival contentions, it may be stated that the proceedings U/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. are of quasi Civil and quasi Criminal nature. It is well settled that such proceedings are of summary nature. The findings rendered in such proceedings can not be treated as final and are always subject to the decision of the Civil Court. The purpose of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is to provide speedy remedy to the claimants eligible to seek separate maintenance allowance. The question regarding validity of the marriage is required to be considered incidentally. The standard of proof required in such proceedings is not likewise one required in proceedings of Criminal complaint for offence U/s 494 of the I.P.C. In "Dwarika Prasad Saptpadi Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and another" AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3348, the Apex Court held that the proof of marriage in such proceedings is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence U/s 494 of the I.P.C. It has been observed further that if the 6 claimant's in proceedings U/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. succeeds in showing that she and the Respondent had lived together as husband and wife, the Court can presume that they are legally wedded spouses. 7. In the fact situation of the present case, it may be gathered that the Respondent adduced evidence regarding factum of marriage and joint residence of the petitioner and the Respondents under one roof. The Courts below noticed that father of the Respondent No.1 was also examined in support of her case. He supported the version of the Respondent No.1 regarding her marriage with the petitioner. He also narrated details of the marriage ceremony which was so performed. The versions of the Respondent Nos.1 and her father indicated that the spouses had performed the marriage after going through ceremonies like "Homa" and Saptapadi etc. Their versions also would show that the petitioner executed an agreement which is placed on record vide Exh.14. 8. Mrs.Rasal, strenuously argued that the 7 Respondents manipulated false agreement stiled as "Kararnama" (Exh.14). She would submit that the affidavit of real husband of the Respondent No.1, namely, Ramesh Prasadhe is name placed on record in order to show that the Respondent No.1 was his wife and could not have entered into the wedlock with the petitioner. She would further point out that affidavit of the sister of said Ramesh also placed on record. It is contended that such evidence was not available to the petitioner until the Revision Petition was decided by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge and now in view of availability of such evidence, it is just and proper to remit the matter to the Court of learned C.J.M., Osmanabad for reconsideration. I do not agree. The reason is not far to seek. This is not an appeal with which I am required to deal. It is well settled that in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, disputed questions of facts can not be entertained. The petitioner may avail appropriate remedy in the Civil Court if he has now come across any material evidence. The question whether the "Kararnama" (Exh.14) was duly executed by the petitioner or not is also a 8 disputed question of fact. 9. The Respondents placed on record a Medical certificate which indicated that the Respondent No.1 had undergone Family Planning operation on 17.10.1989. The recitals of the Medical certificate show that her name was recorded as Smt.Sulan W/o Suresh Patil. She also produced on record a ration card which shows that her husband's name is shown as Suresh Patil. The names of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were also shown as the sons of Suresh Patil. The petitioner examined himself and offered denial to the matrimonial relationship with the Respondent No.1. He examined one Bhagwan Tuljapure and Manmat Kharate in support of his case. The learned C.J.M. and the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge did not believe versions of the said two witnesses. One of the witness is the servant of the petitioner and echoed to his version though in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge was not required to appreciate evidence of the witness, yet, the learned Adhoc 9 Additional Sessions Judge seems to have considered the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the parties in the context of the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and the Respondent No.1. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below have utterly failed to properly appreciate the evidence and have rendered erroneous findings. In this Court, the question of appreciation of evidence can not be reopened, particularly, when the proceedings U/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. were required to be summarily decided. The learned counsel would also point out that handwriting expert could not give definite opinion about the signature appearing on the "Kararnama" (Exh.14) though it is stated that the signature appearing on the said document is similar to the admitted signature. At the same time, it can not be overlooked that the opinion of the handwriting expert does not show that the said document is fabricated. The handwriting expert simply stated that he was unable to express any definite opinion as regards identity in absence of natural material required for assertion of similarities. 10 At the same time, he stated that the signatures on the disputed document and the signatures forwarded to him by the Court indicated certain similarities. 10. Considering the circumstances and the evidence on record, the Courts below have rendered the findings in favour of the Respondents. In the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, I do not find any substantial reason to deviate from such findings and particularly when the findings are based on available material. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp55808