JUDGMENT - Dr. PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.:---This criminal writ petition is filed by the petitioner/original applicant/wife Sunita @ Kavita Vivekanand More, being aggrieved by the judgment and Order dated 27th October, 1994 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Criminal Revision Application No. 118 of 1992. By the impugned judgment and Order, the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, allowed the revision filed by the original non-applicant husband Vivekanand, set-aside the order of maintenance dated 30th June, 1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akkalkot, and dismissed the Application No. 101 of 1990 filed by the wife under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cri.P.C.). 2. The case of the petitioner can be briefly stated as follows: The petitioner herein, Sunita filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 101 of 1990 for maintenance under section 125 Cri.P.C. She claimed to be the legally wedded wife of the opponent Vivekanand More. According to her, their marriage was performed on 26th October, 1989 at Village Kurnur in accordance with rites and customs. After their marriage, there was cohabitation between the parties for couple of days. However, the parents of opponent drove her out, as she could not fulfil their demands for dowry. She then came to her parents place. Her parents house was adjoining the house where her husband and in-laws stayed. Thereafter, she issued one notice to the opponent on 7th September, 1990 asking him to take her back in the matrimonial home. However, there was no response to her notice. Thereafter, the applicant and two witnesses went to the husband's house on 8th April, 1990 to settle the matter. She was left in the matrimonial home by the witnesses, but the opponent sent her back and did not accept her. 3. The applicant has further contended that she was not able to maintain herself. She has also contended that the opponent was earning substantial income from irrigated lands. She has therefore prayed that the husband be directed to pay her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. 4. This application for maintenance came to be resisted by the opponent/husband by filing a written statement. He denied the marriage itself, and the relationship of husband and wife between the parties. He also denied that there was any cohabitation and that, there was any desertion. 500/- per month. 4. This application for maintenance came to be resisted by the opponent/husband by filing a written statement. He denied the marriage itself, and the relationship of husband and wife between the parties. He also denied that there was any cohabitation and that, there was any desertion. He contended that his father was called in the Gram Panchayat Office on 26th October, 1989 and that, the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Babu Kale made proposal of marriage of the applicant Sunita with the opponent. Father of the applicant also was there. Father of the opponent assured that he would consider the proposal. On enquiry, he came to know that the applicant Sunita had illicit relations and was three months pregnant at that time. Therefore, he rejected the marriage proposal. The opponent further stated in his written statement that the signature of his father was obtained on a blank-sheet of paper in the Gram Panchayat, when the marriage proposal was made, and that, it was obtained under pressure. According to him, since he was very rich and belonged to a prestigious family in the village, false claim of relationship was made by the applicant, in order to get maintenance from him. He has stated that he filed a regular Civil suit against the applicant. He had therefore, prayed that the application for maintenance filed by the applicant be dismissed. 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akkalkot, after recording the evidence, and after hearing both the sides, came to the conclusion that the applicant-wife has proved that she was the legally wedded wife of the opponent-husband. He also came to the conclusion that the opponent-husband had neglected and had refused to maintain her and that, the husband had sufficient means to pay the maintenance. Giving these findings, he allowed the petition and ordered the husband to pay maintenance to the wife, at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month from the date of the application i.e. 16th March, 1991. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akkalkot, the husband approached the Sessions Court, by way of filing Criminal Revision Application No. 118 of 1992, which came to be allowed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, and the order of maintenance was set-aside and the application was dismissed. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akkalkot, the husband approached the Sessions Court, by way of filing Criminal Revision Application No. 118 of 1992, which came to be allowed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, and the order of maintenance was set-aside and the application was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-wife has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition. 7. Ms. Aparna Shinde appearing for the petitioner-wife has vehemently argued that the Revisional Court was wrong in dismissing the application of the wife for maintenance. She argued that the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akkalkot, was a correct order, who had appreciated the evidence properly. She has submitted that notice was well taken by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akkalkot of the fact that Sunita and Vivekanand were residing in the adjoining house, that they were neighbours and childhood friends. She further argued that it was also well appreciated by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, after going through the evidence that because of this proximity between Sunita and Vivekanand since their childhood, and because of the promise on behalf of Vivekanand More that he would marry her, there developed a physical relationship between them, which resulted into Sunita's pregnancy. She also highlighted the fact that admittedly Vivekanand's family is a very rich and prestigious family, and if inspite of that, father of Vivekanand was obliged to give consent to the marriage of Vivekanand and Sunita, it was only because he also realised what was the true state of affairs. She further argued that it was erroneous on the part of the Revisional Court to entertain the question about the validity of the marriage, when the application was only under section 125 of the Cri.P.C. She therefore, forcefully submitted that the order of the Revisional Court be set-aside and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akkalkot dated 30th June, 1992 granting maintenance to Sunita be restored. 8. I have heard Ms. Aparna Shinde for petitioner at length. I have also perused the proceedings. Mr. Katikar appearing for respondent No. 1-husband is not present. I have also heard Mr. Salvi, the learned A.P.P. for the State. 9. 8. I have heard Ms. Aparna Shinde for petitioner at length. I have also perused the proceedings. Mr. Katikar appearing for respondent No. 1-husband is not present. I have also heard Mr. Salvi, the learned A.P.P. for the State. 9. Firstly, it has to be highlighted that it is not only a question of maintenance to be given to the wife by the husband; what is at stake and what is involved, is the status of persons, namely, Sunita and Vivekanand. The fact of marriage, the subsequent cohabitation and desertion which are alleged by the petitioner, are denied by the respondent No. 1. While the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akkalkot, after scanning the evidence, came to the conclusion that applicant had proved that she was the wife of Vivekanand, and ordered maintenance to be paid to her, the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, went unnecessarily into the details with respect to the validity of the marriage between the parties. It is well settled that challenge as to the validity of marriage on the ground of nullity is not to be made in the Magistrate's Court, when the proceedings are filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate is not competent to decide the validity of marriage. The proper course in such case, is to grant maintenance, leaving the husband to establish invalidity of marriage in competent Court. 10. Recourse can be conveniently taken to the Supreme Court judgment reported in 2000(5) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)731 (Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit)1, wherein, the Supreme Court has laid down that the validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceeding under section 125 of Cr.P.C. is to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties, that the standard of proof of marriage in such proceedings, is not as strict, as is required in a trial of offence under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further stated by the Supreme Court in this case that 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 section 125 of Cr.P.C. and if from the evidence which is led, the Magistrate is prima facie satisfied with regard to the performance of marriage in proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C., which are of a summary nature, strict proof of performance of essential rites, is not required. 11. In (Veena Devi v. Ashok Kumar Mandal)2, reported in 2000 Cri.L.J. 2332, the Patna High Court has gone to the extent of saying that failure to name the Priest, who had participated in the marriage, could hardly be a ground for disbelieving factum of marriage. It has further been held in the very same case that the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. are of a summary nature, and are not intended to determine fully and finally status and personal rights of parties and questions of marriage need not be decided like a Matrimonial Court. 12. I fully agree with the submissions made by Ms. Aparna Shinde for petitioner that the Revisional Court dealt with the issue, as if it was a Civil Court, deciding validity or otherwise of marriage between Vivekanand and Sunita, when what was before him, was a criminal revision filed by the husband, who was aggrieved by the order of maintenance passed in favour of the wife. This was not proper and goes against the spirit of Legislature in enacting section 125 of Cr.P.C., namely, avoidance of vagrancy and preventing a woman from being a destitute. In view of this, following order is passed: Criminal Writ Petition No. 171 of 1995 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). The judgment and order passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Criminal Revision Application No. 118 of 1992 dated 27th October, 1994 is quashed and set-aside, and the judgment and order passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 101 of 1990 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akkalkot, District Solapur dated 30th June, 1992 is restored. Respondent No. 1 Vivekanand More is directed to comply with the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akkalkot dated 30th June, 1992. Respondent No. 1 Vivekanand More is directed to comply with the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akkalkot dated 30th June, 1992. Arrears of maintenance to be paid within four months from today, and he should continue to pay the maintenance to the petitioner Sunita on or before 15th day of each calendar month. Criminal writ petition disposed of in the above-stated terms. Criminal writ petition allowed. -----