JUDGMENT V.M. Deshpande, J. (Oral) - Heard Shri. H.D. Futane, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri. R.J. Mirza, the learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. The applicant has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge 3, Akola dated 4.12.2010 in Criminal Revision No. 29 of 2009 by which the learned Revisional Court allowed the revision filed on behalf of the nonapplicant and directed the applicant to pay monthly allowance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- from the date of the petition. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred as ''Husband'' and ''Wife''. 4. The wife filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for maintenance. The said application was registered as Criminal Case No. 262 of 2006. As per the wife, her first marriage took place in the year 1991 with Shyam Yeshwant Salvey. From the said wedlock she had two daughters and one son. Her husband Shyam Yeshwant Salvey was suffering from Tuberculosis and ultimately he expired on 16.8.2003. Thereafter, she along-with her minor children started residing at Akot File with her mother. 5. It is also stated by the wife that she is having one elder brother Bandu. Bandu is the friend of husband. Husband used to come to meet him and thereby came in contact with the wife. It is also stated by the husband that he took divorce from his first wife Pramilabai on 13.1.2003 and shown the necessary documents. Relying on the said statement, marriage of the wife took place with the husband on 26.4.2004 in presence of various relatives. It is also stated that thereafter, she started residing with the husband and for first two years she was nicely treated when they were residing in a flat at Tathagat Apartment. However, subsequently, he started causing harassment to the wife. It is also stated that he left the flat and kept the wife in lurch. It is also stated in the application that the name of the wife was entered in the Ration Card, Bank Account, Voter List and Election Card in which she was shown as the wife of the husband and therefore she claimed maintenance. 6. The application was contested by the husband. According to the written statement, in the year 1982 he has married with one Pramilabai. 6. The application was contested by the husband. According to the written statement, in the year 1982 he has married with one Pramilabai. However, from the year 2004 his relations with Pramilabai got strained and therefore he started residing alone in the Tathagat Apartment. It is also stated in the written statement that after one year, there was compromise between him and Pramilabai and they started residing jointly. It is also stated that as false case was lodged against him. After the pleadings were over, parties went to trial. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 7.1.2009 dismissed the application. 7. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the wife preferred Criminal Revision No. 29 of 2009 which is allowed by the impugned order. Hence, this application. 8. Shri. H.D. Futane, the learned counsel for the husband submits that his marriage with Pramilabai was already preformed and therefore, the present non-applicant is not entitled to claim any maintenance. 9. It is to be noted that in the written statement itself applicant/husband has stated that in the year 2004 there was a matrimonial discord between him and his wife Pramilabai and he started residing alone in Tathagat Apartment. In the written statement itself it is stated that during that time, the present non-applicant came in his contact and demanded some household work and looking to her condition he permitted the present non-applicant to perform his household work. Thus, it is clear from the written statement itself that the wife was not unknown to him. In that behalf as per the claim of the wife in the year 2004, itself marriage took place as per "Gandharwa Paddhati" which is a recognized form of marriage and in the said form of marriage the bride and bride groom exchange only garlands. What is further important to note is that though in the written statement it is stated by the husband that subsequent to the matrimonial discord between him and his first wife Pramilabai has settled and they were residing jointly. Thus, it was well within the command of the applicant/husband to examine Pramilabai as his witness to show and prove that their marriage is still subsisting. However, for the reasons best known to the husband he did not examine Pramilabai therefore, an adverse inference is required to be drawn against applicant/husband. Thus, it was well within the command of the applicant/husband to examine Pramilabai as his witness to show and prove that their marriage is still subsisting. However, for the reasons best known to the husband he did not examine Pramilabai therefore, an adverse inference is required to be drawn against applicant/husband. In Vimla (K) v. Veeraswami (K) reported in (1991) 2 SCC 375 Hon''ble Apex Court has ruled that when a plea of subsisting marriage is raised by husband it has to be proved satisfactorily by tendering evidence. In the present case though such plea is taken by the husband he failed to prove the same. 10. The learned Revisional Court has correctly appreciated the fact that the name of the non applicant is shown as wife and of applicant in Ration Card, Voter List and the Identity Card issued by the Election Commission. The Apex Court in (1999) 7 SCC (Dwarika Prasas Satpathy v. Bidyut Dixit) has observed that: "the valid marriage for the purpose of summary proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 is to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties. 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 IPC." 11. The learned Revisional Court, in my view, has rightly considered the available evidence on record for reaching to the conclusion that for the purpose of deciding the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the status of the non-applicant can be considered as a wife of the applicant and has granted maintenance @ Rs. 2,500/-. 12. The applicant at the relevant time was working with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. The submissions are not advanced before this Court in respect of the quantum. Therefore this court is not adverting to the sufficiently or insufficiency of the same. 13. The Revisional court in my view, has not committed any jurisdictional error warranting interference. Hence, the application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.