JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the order dated 17.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, in Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2011 affirming order dated 29.3.2011 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu in Cr. M.A. No. 420-iv/2008. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance Rs 5,000/- per month against the petitioner on the ground that she is legally wedded wife of petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 7.2.2008. The petitioner earlier was married with one Sharda and from that wedlock the petitioner has two sons. Sharda died in January, 2008. The petitioner solemnized marriage with the respondent in February, 2008. The respondent had conceived from the petitioner. 3.The parents of the petitioner levelled false allegations of theft against the respondent on 1.8.2008 and ousted the respondent from the matrimonial home. The respondent has no source of income whereas the petitioner has sufficient means. He was in possession of sufficient property and was in fruit and vegetable business. The income of the petitioner was about !15,000/- per month. Therefore, the respondent claimed !5,000/- maintenance per month from the petitioner. 4.The petitioner contested the petition by filing reply and has denied his marriage with the respondent. The families of petitioner and respondent were inimical with each other and there was long litigation between both the parties. The respondent is wife of Hari Chand resident of village Barshogi (Kahujani) and their marriage was solemnized on 14.10.1996. The respondent filed rejoinder and re­asserted her case. The respondent alleged that the petitioner gave beatings to her as a result of which the respondent aborted and she was admitted in Zonal Hospital, Mandi on 25.10.2008. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 29.3.2011 allowed ! 1,000/- maintenance to respondent against the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition 28.8.2008. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on 17.8.2011 affirmed the order dated 29.3.2011, hence the present petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and record perused. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent is not the wife of the petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on 17.8.2011 affirmed the order dated 29.3.2011, hence the present petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and record perused. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent is not the wife of the petitioner. The learned Courts below have mis-construed and mis-interpreted the oral and documentary evidence on record and have erred in returning the findings that the respondent is the wife of the petitioner and awarding maintenance to the respondent. The maintenance of ‘ 1,000/- per month is otherwise on the higher side. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and has submitted that there is no error of jurisdiction. The two Courts below have concurrently recorded findings of facts and awarded maintenance to the respondent which is not on the higher side. 6.The case of the respondent is that she married with petitioner on 7.2.2008 after the death of earlier wife of the petitioner and after the divorce of respondent with her previous husband. On the contrary, the petitioner has denied his marriage with respondent or they lived together as husband and wife. The case of the petitioner is that respondent is the wife of Hari Chand. The relations between the families of the petitioner and respondent are not good due to litigation and, therefore, the respondent has filed the petition falsely claiming herself to be the wife of the petitioner. 7.PW-1 Smt. Poonam has stated that in the home she is known by name Rami Devi and her school name is Poonam. She was earlier married with Hari Chand but the marriage was dissolved by divorce deed which was prepared in duplicate. One which was signed by Hari Chand was handed over to her and the other one which was signed by her was handed over to Hari Chand. The previous wife of petitioner was ailing and petitioner used to visit her. Their houses were located at a distance of five minutes walk. After the death of previous wife of the petitioner, she and petitioner solemnized marriage and she started living with him as his wife. She had conceived from the petitioner. 8.PW-1 further stated that the parents of the petitioner agreed for their marriage but lateron they started levelling false allegations of theft against her. They alleged that she had stolen ! 3,500/-. She had conceived from the petitioner. 8.PW-1 further stated that the parents of the petitioner agreed for their marriage but lateron they started levelling false allegations of theft against her. They alleged that she had stolen ! 3,500/-. The petitioner ousted her from the matrimonial home on the allegations of theft, but at that time she was pregnant. She had been visiting to Jari hospital for vaccination during pregnancy and a card for this purpose was also prepared, the photocopy of which is mark ‘B’. She aborted due to lack of proper treatment. The Panchayat Pradhan had issued marriage certificate mark ‘C’ to her. She is Harijan and they do not perform the marriage in the presence of Purohit. Their marriage is solemnized with the consent of the parties. 9.PW-1 continued that the petitioner deals in furniture and earns about ! 20,000/-. The petitioner has not given any maintenance to her since she had been turned out from the house. In cross- examination, she has stated that Kaushalya is her sister and Kewal Krishan is uncle of petitioner. She doesn’t know litigation between the families of the petitioner and her paternal family. In 1995 Kaushalya Devi had filed a case against Kewal Krishan. There is no tradition of mourning for one year after the death in their family. The mourning days are limited to five days after the death. 10. PW-2 Roshan Lal has stated that Rakesh is also known as Pangi. He knows Poonam. He is a stamp vendor. The stamp papers were issued by him on the asking of Hari Chand and Poonam. The divorce deed Ex.PW-2/B was scribed in the presence of Lal Chand and Nathu Ram and they put their signatures on the divorce deed. Ex.PW­2/B bears the signatures of Hari Chand and witnesses Lal Chand and Nathu Ram. Nathu Ram put his thumb impression, thereafter he signed the divorce deed. The divorce deed was prepared in duplicate, one was given to Poonam and the other one was given to Hari Chand. 11.PW-3 Shakuntla has stated that she is posted as F.H.W. at CHC, Jari. Poonam wife of Rakesh, resident of Jari was vaccinated on 27.7.2008, the entry is at serial No. 26 of 27.7.2008 in the Register. A card to this effect Ex.PW-3/A was issued by Bimla, FHW. She identified the signatures of Bimla on the card. 11.PW-3 Shakuntla has stated that she is posted as F.H.W. at CHC, Jari. Poonam wife of Rakesh, resident of Jari was vaccinated on 27.7.2008, the entry is at serial No. 26 of 27.7.2008 in the Register. A card to this effect Ex.PW-3/A was issued by Bimla, FHW. She identified the signatures of Bimla on the card. PW-5 Urmila, Assistant Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Bhuin, has proved the copy of family register Ex.PW-5/A. PW-6 Salochana Sharma, President, Gram Panchayat, Bradha has proved certificate Ex.PW-6/A. This certificate was issued by her after seeing the pregnancy card of the woman. 12.RW-1 Rakesh Kumar has stated that he was married to Sharda Devi, who died in January, 2008. As per their custom, no auspicious work is done for one year after the death in the family. Kewal Krishan, uncle of the petitioner had been contesting election against Devi Ram, father of the respondent. Paru Ram is the grand- father of the respondent. Kewal Krishan and Paru Ram had been in litigation for the past. Kaushalya Devi is the elder sister of the respondent, Bhag Chand is the brother of the petitioner. Bhag Chand and Kaushalya Devi had three cases between them, one of them was of maintenance. His grand father and respondent are not on talking terms. He had no relationship with the respondent, the husband of the respondent is Hari Ram. The case is false and has been instituted to tarnish the political image of his father and uncle. 13. In cross-examination he has stated that at the time of his marriage with Sharda no pandit was called. His wife was mentally disturbed 5-6 months prior to her death. The house of the respondent is at a distance of 10-15 minutes walk from his house. He had no knowledge that the respondent had conceived. He does not know that respondent had aborted. Salochana Sharma knew him and respondent as well as their families. He had no enmity with Salochana Sharma. He does not know that respondent had obtained divorce from Hari Chand on 5.1.1998. He does not know respondent has any means of maintenance. He is hale and hearty. RW-2 Khoob Ram has stated that Sharda Devi wife of petitioner had died in January, 2008. Tuli father of Rakesh is his nephew and Rakesh is grand son in relation. He does not know that respondent had obtained divorce from Hari Chand on 5.1.1998. He does not know respondent has any means of maintenance. He is hale and hearty. RW-2 Khoob Ram has stated that Sharda Devi wife of petitioner had died in January, 2008. Tuli father of Rakesh is his nephew and Rakesh is grand son in relation. 14.Ex.R-1 is the certified copy of judgment dated 10.10.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No. 64 of 2001 Kaushalya Devi vs. Bhag Chand. Ex.PW-6/A is the certificate issued by President, Bradha showing Poonma Devi wife of Rakesh. Ex.PW-5/A is the copy of family register of Veri Devi showing Puni Devi, daughter of Devi Ram and Veri Devi wife of Devi Ram. Ex.PW-5/A is also another copy of family register of Sundru Ram showing Hari Chand son of Sundru and Rami Devi wife of Hari Chand etc. but against the entry of Rami Devi it has been stated that she has taken divorce. Ex.PW-3/A is the vaccination card of Poonam wife of Rakesh showing the tentative date of conception 25.5.2008 and delivery 4.3.2009. This also indicates that Poonam visited the centre for vaccination on 28.7.2008, 27.8.2008 and 27.9.2008. Ex.PW-2/B is the divorce deed between Hari Chand and Rami Devi dated 5.1.1998 signed by Hari Chand and witnessed by Lal Chand and Nathu Ram and scribed by Roshan Lal. 15.The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and another AIR 1988 SC 644 on the point that under Section 125 Cr.P.C. ‘wife’ means legally wedded wife. He has submitted that respondent was already married with Hari Chand, therefore, she could not marry with petitioner in absence of proof of dissolution of her marriage with Hari Chand. In Phirari Singh vs. State of U.P. and others 1990 Cri.L.J.884, it has been held that if factum of marriage not established, application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied R.P.Kapur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 on the power of the High Court to quash proceedings. 16. In Phirari Singh vs. State of U.P. and others 1990 Cri.L.J.884, it has been held that if factum of marriage not established, application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied R.P.Kapur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 on the power of the High Court to quash proceedings. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied Chanmuniya vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and another (2011) 1 SCC 141 where the Supreme Court has held that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term ‘wife’ to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time and strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., so as to fulfill true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 17. The respondent has proved that her previous marriage with Hari Chand was dissolved by dissolution deed Ex.PW-2/B dated 5.1.1998. The marriage dissolution deed has been proved by PW-2 Roshan Lal scribe. The respondent has stated that after the death of previous wife of petitioner she married with petitioner and conceived from him. The respondent has stated that she had been visiting the health centre for vaccination but she aborted the foetus for want of proper treatment. PW-3 Smt. Shakuntla has proved vaccination card Ex.PW-3/A of the respondent in which tentative date of conception and delivery has been given. It also shows that the respondent had visited the centre on 28.7.2008, 27.8.2008 and 27.9.2008. PW-6 Salochana Sharma has proved certificate Ex.PW-6/A showing respondent to be the wife of petitioner. 18. RW-1 Rakesh has admitted that Salochana knew him as well as respondent and he has no enmity with Salochana. Salochana as President of Gram Panchayat is expected to be acquainted with both the petitioner and respondent and, therefore, the authenticity of certificate Ex.PW-6/A cannot be doubted more particularly when the petitioner has stated that he has no enmity with Salochana. The respondent has proved her marriage with petitioner. It has also been proved that petitioner has sufficient income. On the other hand, the respondent has no means to maintain herself. The petitioner has neglected the respondent. The respondent has proved her marriage with petitioner. It has also been proved that petitioner has sufficient income. On the other hand, the respondent has no means to maintain herself. The petitioner has neglected the respondent. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition has been filed due to enmity between the two families, has no force. The judgment Ex.R-1 dated 10.10.2007 in Cr.R. No. 64 of 2001 in between Kaushalya Devi vs. Bhag Singh is of no help to petitioner. 19.The two Courts below have rightly appreciated the material on record. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very limited, it is not a case of no evidence. There is no perversity in the impugned judgment. On behalf of the petitioner no case of error of jurisdiction has been made out. The quantum of maintenance as well as period from which the maintenance has been allowed by the two Courts below are also not wrong. There is no merit in the petition. 20.In view of above, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application.