JUDGMENT : Bansi Lal Bhat, J.:- 1. Through the medium of instant petition filed under section 561-A of CrPC, petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 29.01.2013 passed by learned Munsif (JMIC) Jammu in proceedings under Section 488 CrPC titled Tejinder Kour and Anr. v. Bhajan Singh by virtue whereof petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5500/- per month to the respondents who are his wife and minor daughter as interim maintenance. Petitioner also assails the order formulated by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu dated 13.05.2013 in revisional proceedings upholding the impugned order passed by the Magistrate. The impugned orders have been assailed on the ground of non-application of mind and non-adherence to requirement of law. In a nutshell, the case set up by respondents before the learned Magistrate for enforcing their claim for maintenance under Section 488 CrPC was that the petitioner no 1 was the legally wedded wife of present petitioner and respondent No. 2 was born out of said wedlock; that the present petitioner, despite being possessed of sufficient means, had neglected and refused to maintain the respondents who were unable to maintain themselves. Plea put up by petitioner before the learned Inquiring Magistrate was that he had divorced respondent No. 1 in accordance with the custom prevalent in the family and society of petitioner and thus relationship between the present petitioner and respondent No. 1 as husband and wife no more subsisted, as such the petitioner was not liable to pay maintenance allowance to the Respondents. It appears that during the pendency of proceedings under Section 488 CrPC respondents filed an application for grant of interim maintenance which too was contested by the present petitioner on the plea of customary divorce. Learned Magistrate passed the impugned order allowing a monthly interim maintenance of Rs. 3000/- in favour of respondent-wife and Rs. 2500/-in favour of respondent-minor daughter till disposal of the main petition. The learned Magistrate noticed that the factum of marriage inter se the present petitioner and respondent No. 1 as also the birth of respondent No. 2 out of the said wedlock was an admitted position and the plea of customary divorce taken by present petitioner was to be proved at the trial. Learned Magistrate observed that mere taking of plea would not absolve the husband from liability of maintaining his wife. Learned Magistrate observed that mere taking of plea would not absolve the husband from liability of maintaining his wife. It further observed that insofar as minor daughter was concerned, she was entitled to maintenance notwithstanding the plea of divorce raised by present petitioner before the Inquiring Magistrate. In Revisional proceedings learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the view of learned Inquiring Magistrate that the plea of dissolution of marriage between parties by mutual consent had to be proved by the present petitioner during enquiry in the main petition and no intervention was required. 2. Heard the rival sides and perused the record. 3. Mr. Saini learned counsel for petitioner submits that marriage between petitioner and respondent No. 1 was dissolved with the intervention of Mahant Manjit Singh of Dera Nangali Sahib Digiana Ashram Jammu to which both parties consented and besides returning of dowry articles, respondent No. 1 was paid an amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs by petitioner towards full and final settlement of claim of maintenance of respondents. It is further submitted that respondent wife had agreed to deposit Rs. 1.00 lac out of the received amount in the name of her minor daughter and further agreed not to stake any claim for maintenance in future. Reference is made to mutual divorce deed executed between petitioner and respondent No. 1 on 16.01.2004. It is contended that since respondent No. 1 ceased to be the wife of petitioner and the claim of respondents for maintenance had been satisfied through the mode of lump-sum payment of Rs. 2.00 lacs made at the time of execution of the divorce deed, claim of respondents for maintenance, absolute or interim, was not entertain able. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents, while disputing the factum of divorce by mutual consent and payment of maintenance amount in lump-sum, contended that the marriage between the spouses could not be dissolved in the manner suggested. He further submitted that the burden of proof regarding the plea of divorce by mutual consent rested upon the petitioner and finding on such plea could be returned only after full-fledged enquiry in the proceedings under Section 488 CrPC. It is contended that meanwhile respondents could not be denied interim maintenance. 4. The factum and validity of marriage between the spouses i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 1 is an admitted fact. It is contended that meanwhile respondents could not be denied interim maintenance. 4. The factum and validity of marriage between the spouses i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 1 is an admitted fact. That respondent No. 2 is the girl-child born out of such wedlock is also not disputed. It appears that the respondents put forth their claim for maintenance on the ground that the present petitioner has, despite being possessed of sufficient means, neglected and refused to maintain them. This is contested by the present petitioner who claims that the marriage between him and respondent No. 1 stands dissolved by mutual consent and that he has paid an amount of Rs. 2.00 Lacs towards full and the final settlement of claim of respondents for maintenance. Parties are Sikhs by faith and the marriage has been solemnized under the Hindu Marriage Act. Petitioner in the instant petition, being the husband and father of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, is under a legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor child who are unable to support themselves. Burden of proof of the plea that the marriage has been dissolved between the spouses through a lawful mode recognized by law rests upon the present petitioner who has taken such plea. It is alleged by the respondents that the petitioner obtained signatures of respondent No. 1 on a paper by mis-representation of facts. Thus, the signature of respondent No. 1 on Divorce Deed is alleged to have been obtained fraudulently. In the backdrop of allegations in the petition under Section 488 of Cr.P.C. filed by respondents, it is for the petitioner herein to establish that the marriage between the spouses has been lawfully dissolved. It is well settled that a Hindu marriage cannot be dissolved in any manner otherwise than by obtaining a decree for divorce. Hindu Marriage Act, 1980 provides the grounds available to either of the spouses to claim divorce. The Act also provides for divorce by mutual consent of the spouses. No mode other than the judicial intervention for obtaining divorce is recognized under Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of a Hindu marriage. Section 4 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1980 emphatically provides that the Act has an overriding effect and any custom or usage in conflict with the provisions of the Act shall cease to have effect. No mode other than the judicial intervention for obtaining divorce is recognized under Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of a Hindu marriage. Section 4 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1980 emphatically provides that the Act has an overriding effect and any custom or usage in conflict with the provisions of the Act shall cease to have effect. However, any right recognized by custom or conferred by any special enactment to obtain the dissolution of a Hindu marriage is saved under Section 36(3)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The burden of proving the existence of a custom recognizing right of a spouse to obtain divorce rests upon the present respondent who may be required to establish that such custom has been in existence since times immemorial, followed uninterruptedly and that such custom is not opposed to public policy or against a statute. Such custom has to be pleaded and proved by the husband, i.e., the present petitioner. Unless and until the existence and validity of such custom, being judicially recognized, is established by the petitioner, subsistence of marriage between the present petitioner and respondent No. 1 is presumed and all necessary consequences including husband's obligation to maintain his wife and father's obligation to maintain his minor children unable to support themselves continues. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred to a number of judicial pronouncements laying down the ratio that onus of proof lies upon the wife to show that she was justified in living separately for claiming maintenance and that divorce by mutual consent would not entitle the wife to maintenance. There is no dispute with these propositions of law. If the wife fails to prove that the husband had neglected or refused to maintain her or that she had a just ground for refusing to live with her husband, she would not be entitled to claim maintenance. The determination of these issues rests upon the proof adduced during enquiry. The plea of husband in a given case that the marriage has been dissolved or that the wife is living in adultery or that the spouses are living separately by mutual consent has to be proved at the enquiry. In so far as grant of interim maintenance is concerned, it is sufficient for the wife to show existence of a prima facie case that she has been neglected or the husband has refused to maintain her. In so far as grant of interim maintenance is concerned, it is sufficient for the wife to show existence of a prima facie case that she has been neglected or the husband has refused to maintain her. The question of consideration of a plea raised by husband constituting a probable defense to the claim of wife arises only during enquiry and not at the very outset. That would defeat the purpose of the legislative provision engrafted under Section 488 of CrPC which is aimed at preventing vagrancy and starvation. 5. In the given circumstances, question of respondent No. 1 having ceased to be the wife of petitioner in consequence of customary divorce pleaded by petitioner cannot be considered at the stage of grant of interim maintenance and respondent-wife cannot be asked to justify her case for separate maintenance as her very status as wife is denied by the petitioner herein who has pleaded customary divorce by mutual consent of the parties. Thus viewed, the impugned orders awarding interim compensation of Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 2500/- to respondent- wife and child respectively cannot be termed as abuse of process of law justifying quashing of such orders. I find no illegal infirmity in the impugned orders which stand the scrutiny of law and do not call for invoking of inherent jurisdiction of this Court warranting its quashment. 7. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Record be sent back to the Inquiring Magistrate.