A. N. DIKSHITA, J. ( 1 ) THE applicant has filed this application under S. 482, Cr. P. C. praying for quashing the impugned orders dated 21-12-1982 and 12-7-1983 passed by X Additional Munsif Magistrate, Gorakhpur and VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, respectively and also for dismissing the application filed by the Opp. Party 2 under S. 125, Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) THE facts in a narrow compass are that there is a long standing enmity between the applicant on the one side and the father and uncle of the opp. party 2 Smt. Ramawati Devi (daughter of Ram Samujh) on the other so much so that criminal cases and civil suits were filed by either of the parties since the year 1975. Sri Udai Raj Singh, nephew of the applicant was successfully elected Block Pramukh in successive elections since long, though father and uncle of opp. party 2 had supported rival candidate against Udairaj Singh. Panchoo alias Prem Narain, uncle of opp. party 2 was a notorious person and had been dismissed from the U. P. Police Service on serious charges. ( 3 ) ON account of strained relationship and bitter feud between the parties Ram Samujh, father of opp. party 2 and Panehoo alias Prem Narain got an application filed under S. 125, Cr. P. C. by opp. party 2 against the applicant. It was alleged that about 2 years back opp. party 2 was married with the applicant and she became pregnant but on her refusal to get an abortion done she was turned out of the house by the applicant. ( 4 ) THE said application was contested by the applicant on the ground that it is the outcome of the long standing enmity between the applicant and the father and uncle of the opp. party and more so to lower down the applicant in esteem before the persons in the village. It was stated that the applicant is about 65 years of age while the opp. party 2 is only about 20 years. The applicant was married about 40 years back with the daughter of one Jang Bahadur Singh and has born children from this wedlock. ( 5 ) THE applicant has categorically stated that he was never married to opp. party 2. ( 6 ) THE trial court allowed the application of the opp. party 2 is only about 20 years. The applicant was married about 40 years back with the daughter of one Jang Bahadur Singh and has born children from this wedlock. ( 5 ) THE applicant has categorically stated that he was never married to opp. party 2. ( 6 ) THE trial court allowed the application of the opp. party 2 by its order dated 21-12-1982 allowing the maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month to opp. party 2 and Rs. 100/- to opp. party 3 from the date of the presentation of the application i. e. 13-6-1979. The maintenance has been allowed in favour of the child, which was born later than the date of the presentation of the application, i. e. 13-6-1979. ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED against the order dated 21-12-82 passed by the learned Munsif Magistrate, a revision was preferred by the applicant, but it was rejected by 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur. ( 8 ) IT has been alleged in the affidavit that the factum of marriage was in dispute but the trial Court gave the finding of marriage in the absence of any evidence as regards the performance of marriage within the postulates of S. 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act. No documents were put forward to support the claim of the opp. party 2 that she was married to the applicant. Only oral evidence of the opp. party 2, her father Ram Samujh, and Chabiraj of the village was adduced. ( 9 ) THE applicant besides filing documentary evidence examined himself and one Girdhari. However, Girdhari was not subjected to cross-examination for his absence and no steps were taken much less coercive to compel his attendance. It is thus urged that the order allowing the maintenance is perverse, ignoring a cardinal admission that there is a long standing civil as well as criminal litigation going on between the Uncle and Father of the opp. party 2 and the applicant and more so this solitary fact has been ignored that the application being a motivated one has been filed at the instance of Panchoo alias Prem Narain uncle of opp. party 2, who had intended to usurp the agricultural land of the applicant. party 2 and the applicant and more so this solitary fact has been ignored that the application being a motivated one has been filed at the instance of Panchoo alias Prem Narain uncle of opp. party 2, who had intended to usurp the agricultural land of the applicant. ( 10 ) IT is alleged that the learned Sessions Judge did not, decide all the questions raised before him, particularly the averments as contained in paras 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the grounds of revision. The contention of the applicant is that the Courts below have misread and miscontrued the statement of the applicant and have perversely held the factum of marriage by shifting burden of proof of marriage on the applicant. Even the quantum of maintenance that has been awarded is arbitrary, and more so when there was not an iota of evidence that the opp. party is unable to maintain herself, Hence the application under S. 482, Cr. P. C. ( 11 ) COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT has been filed denying the allegations as contained in the affidavit. For the proper appreciation of the controversy, it is necessary to appreciate the revial contentions and the evidence on record of the parties. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has strongly urged that the Courts below have manifestly erred and have perversely come to the conclusion that the marriage was solemnised between the applicant and the opp. party 2. In the application under S. 125, Cr. P. C. , it was stated that the opp. party 2 was married to applicant some two years back and is residing with him as his wife. It was also stated that the first wife of the applicant expired much earlier and on the date of the application, the opp. party 2 was in family way for 6 months. The opp. party 2 was brought by the applicant in his house and the society knew that the applicant and opp. party 2 are husband and wife. However, on account of her becoming pregnant, the applicant was insisting that she should resort to abortion which was sternly resisted by the opp. party 2 which created displeasure and disharmony with the applicant so much so that applicant was adamant to get her aborted but on account of the stubborn resistance she was time and again given a good beating. Even the opp. party 2 which created displeasure and disharmony with the applicant so much so that applicant was adamant to get her aborted but on account of the stubborn resistance she was time and again given a good beating. Even the opp. party 2 was threatened with murder in case she did not get herself aborted. Later she was turned out of the house. She has become helpless and even members of her family are not willing to maintain her as her parents are very poor. It was also said in the application that the opp. party 2 is herself not able to earn her livelihood. The applicant, as is revealed, from the perusal of this application, filed by opp. party 2 is a very affluent person and owns 90/95 bighas of land besides three pucca houses. She is thus entitled to claim the maintenance. The applicant has refused to maintain opp. party 2, though opp. party 2 at no stage had refused to maintain herself as the wife of the applicant and is still willing to live as his wife. On such allegations, as contained in the application u/s. 125, Cr. P. C. , Rs. 500/- were claimed for herself and Rs. 300/- for the child to be born. In the written statement filed by the applicant, the allegations as contained in the application were categorically denied. It was specifically repudiated that the applicant was ever married to opp. party 2, or that the opp. party 2 ever lived with the applicant as his wife. In fact it was alleged that the applicant has absolutely no relationship, or concern with the opp. party 2. It was also alleged that the applicant is around 60 years of age and has two sons and a daughter, who all are married and have children. Even the grand-son of the applicant is student of Intermediate. The brother and other family members are jointly living in this house. It was alleged that the application is the outcome of a long standing enmity and political rivalry. ( 13 ) IN support of her case, opp. party 2 examined herself. She has stated that her husbands name is Ferari Singh to whom she was married 3 years back. She resided with him for 1-1/2 years as his wife. Out of this wedlock a daughter was born which is also of 1-1/2 years. ( 13 ) IN support of her case, opp. party 2 examined herself. She has stated that her husbands name is Ferari Singh to whom she was married 3 years back. She resided with him for 1-1/2 years as his wife. Out of this wedlock a daughter was born which is also of 1-1/2 years. Applicant, Ferari Singh is by caste Kichhwi (upper caste ). She was always kept as his wife and the people of the village knew them as husband and wife. In view of her becoming pregnant, the applicant told her to get herself aborted, but as the opp. party 2 did not agree, hence she was abused and turned out of the house. Even her parents turned her out and there is no source of livelihood for the opp. party 2 and her daughter. In her statement, opp. party 2 has stated that the applicant has 50-60 bighas of agricultural land and a kuchha house (though of bricks ). The applicant is not willing to keep her. After turning her from the house she has not been given any maintenance. Opp. party 2 has deposed that she is willing to live with the applicant and she requires about 25-35 bighas of agricultural land for her survival. It has been categorically stated by opp. party 2 in her statement that the monthly income of opp. party 2 is between Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/ -. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that the applicant has two sons, Jhallar and Baiju and two daughters who have been married. Jhallar and Baiju, both are also married and are residing in same house in which applicant lives. Baiju too has two sons Diwakar and Daya Nand. Both these children are studying. Baiju has two daughters also. Jhallar has also a daughter. It has been admitted by opp. party 2 that Panchoo alias Prem Narain is her uncle. It has also been admitted by opp. party 2 that a litigation is pending between her uncle Panchoo alias Prem Narain and applicant Ferari Singh. This case is being contested by her father. It has again been admitted that when she was turned out, some year prior to her turning out of the house, criminal litigation under S. 107, Cr. P. C. was pending between the applicant and her father. This case is being contested by her father. It has again been admitted that when she was turned out, some year prior to her turning out of the house, criminal litigation under S. 107, Cr. P. C. was pending between the applicant and her father. She has admitted that Panchoo alias Prem Narain was earlier employed in the Police Department, but has been dismissed. It has been admitted that this application under S. 125, Cr. P. C. has been filed at the instance of Panchoo, alias Prem Narain. It has again been admitted that prior to her being turned out from the house, Panchoo, alias Prem Narain had filed a case of theft against the applicant. It has also been admitted that Udai Raj Singh is brother of Ferari Singh and is residing with him in the same house. All the members of the family of Ferari Singh have a common kitchen. ( 14 ) TO supplement her case further, the opposite party No. 2 examined her father as P. W. 2. P. W. 2, Ram Samujh has stated that her daughter Ramwati (Opposite party No. 2) was married to Ferari Singh (applicant) and she stayed with him for two years. A daughter was born of such marriage. He has admitted that he does not know as to why Ramwati was turned out of the house by Ferari Singh (applicant ). He has also stated that Ferari Singh (applicant) is possessed of 70-75 bighas of agricultural and his monthly income is around 2000/- 2500/- rupees. Ramwati (opposite party No. 2) has no source of maintaining herself and her daughter, nor is he in a position to maintain them. This witness (P. W. 2) Ram Samujh has admitted that Panchoo alias Prem Narain in his brother. He also admits that Ferari Singh (applicant) is Kshattriya by caste while he belongs a lower caste. Opposite party No. 2 has also produced Chhabiraj, who has deposed that Ramwati, opposite party 2 is wife of Ferari Singh (applicant) and stayed with him as his wife for two years. A son was born to Ramwati (opposite party 2) out of this marriage. He has also stated that he does not know as to why Ramwati has been turned out of his house by Ferari Singh. A son was born to Ramwati (opposite party 2) out of this marriage. He has also stated that he does not know as to why Ramwati has been turned out of his house by Ferari Singh. He has also testified that Ferari Singh is possessed of 70-75 bighas of agricultural land and that his monthly income is around 1 to 2 thousand per month. He has also categorically stated that there is litigation between the family of Ferari Singh and the family of Panchoo alias Prem Narain for the last 8-10 years. He has given the age of Ferari Singh as 70/80 years, while that of Ramwati around 25/26 years. ( 15 ) THE critical appreciation of the evidence would thus show that each of the witnesses, produced on behalf of opposite party 2, is harping on their own tunes. P. W. 1 (opposite party 2) has stated that she was married to applicant. None of the witnesses have testified to the factum of marriage except that she stayed with him as his wife. While P. W. 1 Ramwati, and P. W. 2 Ram Samujh, state that a daughter, was born to Ramwati, P. W. 3 Chhabiraj deposed that a son was born. P. W. 1 Ramwati has deposed that there is around 50-60 Bighas of land and a kuchcha house built of bricks but P. W. 2 Ram Samujh has gone to the extent of deposing that Ferari Singh is possessed of around 70-75 bighas of agricultural land. While P. W. 1 Ramwati had stated that monthly income of Ferari Singh (applicant) is around 500-60 rupees, P. W. 2 Ram Samujh has deposed that the monthly income of applicant Ferari Singh is around Rs. 2000-2500 while P. W. 3 Chhabiraj has stated the monthly income of Ferari Singh to be 1000, or 2000 rupees per month. P. W. 1 has categorically stated that she wants 25-30 bighas of agricultural land for her maintenance. In view of such contradictions and motivated testimony, it is difficult to come to an irresistible conclusion that the applicant was ever married to opposite party 2. ( 16 ) FERARI Singh applicant appeared in the witness box as D. W. 1 and has stated that he was married 40 years back with the daughter of one Sri Jang Bahadur of village Karori District Deoria and has two sons and a daughter. ( 16 ) FERARI Singh applicant appeared in the witness box as D. W. 1 and has stated that he was married 40 years back with the daughter of one Sri Jang Bahadur of village Karori District Deoria and has two sons and a daughter. He has also deposed that Ramwati is Harijan by caste while he is a Thakur. He has categorically denied that Ramwati was even married to him and is his wife and that a daughter was born out of their wedlock. From the above, it is clear that there is no evidence much less a legal one to warrant that opposite party 2 is the wife of applicant. The mere allegation that Ramwati is wife will not be sufficient when the very factum of marriage has been categorically denied by the applicant. Besides the interested testimony no one has come forward to say that they were present at the time of the marriage or that they had witnessed it. Even the date, month or year of the marriage has not been spelt out by the opposite party 2, or her witnesses. The burden to prove the marriage lay on the applicant and the evidence on record does not show that the applicant ever married opposite party 2 and is his legally wedded wife. P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 have only stated that P. W. 2 is the wife of the applicant, but have not stated a word as to when such marriage was performed according to what rites. Even the provisions of S. 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act do not stand complied. Once the applicant was categorically denying about the factum of marriage, a heavy burden lay on the opposite party 2 to establish the factum of marriage, but that has not been done. From the record, it is apparent, there is no evidence much less a legal evidence, that opposite party 2 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant. Once the very factum of marriage has not been established, the application under S. 125, Cr. From the record, it is apparent, there is no evidence much less a legal evidence, that opposite party 2 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant. Once the very factum of marriage has not been established, the application under S. 125, Cr. P. C. would not be maintainable as the existence of the conjugal relationship is the foundation for claiming an order for the payment of maintenance under the Criminal P. C. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed strong reliance in the case of R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : (1960 Cri LJ 1239) and has thus strenuously urged that it is a fit case, in which this court shall invoke its inherent jurisdiction by quashing the impugned order as there is no evidence much less a legal one. In para 6, the Supreme Court has held as under :"before dealing with the merits of the appeal it is necessary to consider the nature and scope of the inherent power of the High Court under S. 561-A of the Code. The said Section saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. There is no doubt that this inherent power cannot be exercised in regard to matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code. In the present case the magistrate before whom the police report has been filed under S. 173 of the Code has yet not applied his mind to the merits of the said report and it may be assumed in favour of the appellant that his request for the quashing of the proceeding is not at the present stage covered by any specific provisions of the Code. It is well established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. Ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. However, we may indicate some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the court, or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice. If the criminal proceedings in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceeding on that ground. Absence of the requisite sanction may for instance furnish cases under this category. Cases may also where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the first information report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such case it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal court to be issued against the accused person. A third category of cases in which the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be successfully invoked may also arise. In cases falling under this category the allegations made against the accused persons do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case, or evidence adduced clearly, or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In cases falling under this category the allegations made against the accused persons do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case, or evidence adduced clearly, or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may, or may not support the accusation in question. " ( 17 ) IN view of the above, it is a fit case, where an inherent power under S. 482, Cr. P. C. deserves to be invoked for quashing the impugned orders. ( 18 ) IN the result, the application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated 21-12-1982 passed by 10th Addl. Munsif Magistrate Gorakhpur and the order dated 12-7-1983 passed by 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur are hereby quashed. ( 19 ) THE case is remanded back to the Munsif Magistrate for retrial according to law. He may permit the parties to produce necessary evidence in support of their respective contentions. Application allowed. .