JUDGMENT : R.G. KETKAR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Thorat, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Chatur Tahilram Kripalani, respondent No. 1 in person at length. 2. By this Application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short 'Act'), applicant has challenged the judgment and decree 22.4.2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No. 7, Mumbai in Petition No. E-98 of 2013. By that order, the learned Trial Judge rejected the Petition filed by the applicant herein under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') read with Sections 18, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'D.V. Act'). Initially, the applicant had instituted Family Court Appeal No. 143 of 2015 in this Court. By order dated 16.9.2015, Appeal was admitted. On behalf of the respondent, objection was raised to the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court. By order dated 25.1.2018, this Court held that the Family Court Appeal is not maintainable and the applicant was given liberty to file Revision under Section 19(4) of the Act. It was also made clear that the applicant was prosecuting the Family Court Appeal from May 2015 till the date of the order and the said aspect shall be considered by the concerned Court if the issue of limitation arises. The present Application is instituted on 15.2.2018. As there was delay in filing the Revision Application, applicant took out Criminal Application No. 169 of 2018 for condonation of delay. By order dated 18.12.2018, the delay was condoned. 3. In support of this Application, Mr. Thorat has taken me through the impugned order. He submitted that admitted position is that the applicant and respondent No. 1 were staying together from 1993 till 16.11.2012. He has taken me through the documentary evidence such as- (a) Affidavit dated 5.1.2005 made by the parties; (b) Application dated 17.3.2005 made by the applicant to the Passport Officer; (c) Marriage Affidavit dated 15.3.2005; (d) Passport issued on 2.5.2005; (e) Bonds Certificates issued by Indian Railway Finance Corporation Limited; (f) Postal Ballot Form of IDBI Bank Limited; (g) Application dated 4.12.2006 made by the respondent No. 1 to the Secretary, Advocates' Welfare Association, High Court, Mumbai nominating the applicant herein; and (h) Agreement of Hire Purchase dated 18.8.1995. Mr. Mr. Thorat submitted that in all these documents, applicant is described as wife of the respondent No. 1. 4. The learned Trial Judge held that the applicant has not established marriage with the respondent No. 1. He relied upon the decisions in- (i) Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, I (2004) DLT (Crl.) 486 (SC) : IX (2013) SLT 543 : III (2013) DMC 518 (SC) : (2014) 1 SCC 188 , and (ii) Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar, VIII (2018) SLT 395 : AIR 2018 SC 5128 . 5. On the other hand, respondent No. 1 in person strenuously opposed the Application. He submitted that the marriage between the parties was never solemnized. The learned Trial Judge, after appreciating the evidence on record, has also held that the applicant has failed to prove that the marriage was performed. He, therefore, submitted that as the marriage between the parties was not proved, applicant is not entitled to any relief and the Application deserves to be dismissed. 6. During the course of hearing, I suggested to the respondent No. 1 to consider paying ex gratia amount without accepting applicant as his wife. Initially, he expressed his willingness to pay Rs. 2,00,000 as ex gratia amount as and by way of full and final settlement. Mr. Thorat, on the other hand, submitted that applicant is not willing to accept any amount less than Rs. 20,00,000. I, therefore asked the respondent No. 1 whether he is willing to increase his offer. Finally, he stated that at the most, he can pay Rs. 5,00,000 as and by way of final settlement of the applicant's claim and that he will deposit that amount in this Court within four weeks from today. 7. After considering the material on record and after hearing the parties, I am of the opinion that a fairly arguable case is made out. Hence, Rule. Respondent No. 1 waives service. Call for R & P. Rule on interim relief is made returnable after 6 weeks. Respondent shall deposit Rs. 5,00,000 in this Court within 4 weeks from today under intimation in writing to the applicant's Advocate. The said deposit shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. On the next date of hearing, the Court will consider passing of interim order.