JUDGMENT : 1. By way of preferring this Criminal Revision Application, the applicant has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 19.03.2019 passed by learned Family Court, Surendranagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.402 of 2018. 2. The brief facts are as under: That, marriage of the respondent no.2 was solemnized with one Amijbhai Ajijbhai Solanki on 16.05.2004 as per their rites and rituals at Surendranagar and from the said wedlock, one child namely Sanya was born. That, husband of the respondent no.2 namely Amijbhai was suffering from kidney disease and he was on last breath and therefore, before his death, respondent No.2 had taken divorce from him. That, husband of the respondent No.2 namely Amijbhai was died on 04.11.2012. That, the applicant-original opponent had come into acquaintance with respondent No.2 as he had accompanied the husband of the respondent No.2 at his illness. After the death of husband of respondent No.2, she fallen in love with the applicant herein and therefore, she had accepted the Hindu religion and she had been converted from Muslim to Hindu by religion and thereafter, her name was also changed from Sahina to Sapna. The respondent No.2 had registered her marriage at Hindu Mahasabha Khadiya, Ahmedabad. 3. That, the mother of applicant was giving physical and mental torture to respondent No.2 and meanwhile, respondent No.2 had become pregnant, but due to the harassment, her pregnancy had become miscarriage. That respondent No.2 was deserted by the applicant and his mother and she was constrained to live with her parental home. That, respondent No.2 herein had having no income and she was not taken care by the applicant and also no any attempt was made by him to call her back. With the above and other allegations, respondent No.2 (original applicant) had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the learned Family Court, Surendranagar and prayed maintenance of Rs. 20,000 per month from the applicant herein. Learned Family Court, Surendranagar, after considering the evidence, was pleased to pass an order granting maintenance of Rs. 3000.00 per month to respondent no.2 from the date of filing of the application i.e.12.10.2018. Hence, this revision. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 20,000 per month from the applicant herein. Learned Family Court, Surendranagar, after considering the evidence, was pleased to pass an order granting maintenance of Rs. 3000.00 per month to respondent no.2 from the date of filing of the application i.e.12.10.2018. Hence, this revision. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. It was submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that the impugned judgment and order is contrary to the facts and law and evidence on record which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. That, respondent No.2 herein could not prove that she has been converted from Muslim to Hindu by religion as well as she had performed marriage with the present applicant as per Hindu rites and rituals. Even otherwise, the marriage of the respondent No.2 with the applicant is not being proved and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That, respondent No.2 had raised false and frivolous allegations against the applicant and his mother. It is submitted that, respondent No.2 herein had never resided together with applicant and his mother at their house at Limbdi. It is further submitted that, if the respondent No.2 was in loveship with the applicant, ipso facto she does not become entitled to get maintenance from the applicant under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. That, the concerned person of Hindu Mahasabha was not examined as a witness in the proceedings qua maintenance to establish her marriage with the applicant. That, the documents qua conversion of religion of respondent No.2 could not have been exhibited because the concerned and responsible person of the Gujarat Pradesh Hindu Mahasabha had not been examined as witness in the said proceedings, who had issued a certificate qua the conversion of religion and also, contents of the said document ought not to have been considered by the learned Family Court while the person who had issued certificate was not examined as a witness. That, Hindu Mahasabha had having no legal power for conversion of religion of citizen and having no power to register the marriage under any statute. That, Hindu Mahasabha had having no legal power for conversion of religion of citizen and having no power to register the marriage under any statute. Even otherwise, the marriage certificate which had been issued by the aforesaid organization cannot be said to be legal and valid and hence, there is no evidentiary value of the said certificate and therefore, the alleged marriage of respondent No.2 with the applicant is even otherwise not proved in the eyes of law and therefore in such case, maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be awarded. Even otherwise there was no co-habilitation of the applicant with respondent No.2 is proved and also, the said relationship is not being proved even by the oral testimony as well as by documentary evidence. Hence, learned Judge of Family Court ought not to have passed the impugned order in favour of respondent No.2. That, respondent No.2 herein has made false statement qua the relationship of the applicant with her and also, she has made false statement about her marriage with the applicant, in fact, the applicant had not performed marriage with respondent No.2. Further, it is contended that, the applicant and respondent No.2 had not resided together at village Rajpur, Taluka Kadi as alleged in application for maintenance. That, once the fact qua marriage is denied by the present applicant, then burden would lie to the other side i.e. respondent No.2 to prove that she is legally wedded wife of the applicant. It is contended that no any witness was called for in witness box as to prove the fact that the marriage of the parties was legally solemnized under Hindu rites and rituals. However, without considering the vital aspect of the case, learned Family Court has wrongfully passed the judgment and order in favour of respondent No.2. That, respondent No.2 is Muslim by religion and the applicant is Hindu by religion and therefore, their marriage cannot be performed legally under the Hindu Marriage Act and if the parties belong from different religion, they can perform the marriage under the other Act, but not under Hindu Marriage Act and the said marriage has to be registered before the competent officer of the Registrar's office after following due process prescribed by statute and rules. But, in the present case, the story of marriage of respondent No.2 with the applicant seems to be fabricated and it is also not proved by evidence. Ultimately it was requested by learned advocate for the applicant to allow present application. 4. Learned advocate for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the respondent no.2 had adopted Hindu religion on 28.07.2014 and after adoption, she registered her marriage on 28.07.2014 and after her marriage, with the applicant, she was residing with the respondent No.2 at Limbadi but her mother-in-law was telling that you have been converted from Muslim to Hindu thus, we are not accepting you and thus, she was residing in the rental premises in the house of relative of the applicant at Rajpur and by that way, respondent no.2 was passing her marriage life happily with the applicant but, her mother-in-law threatened her while reaching at Rajpur in absence of applicant. That respondent no.2 was ready to stay as per say of her mother-in-law but her mother-in-law did not accept her and pursued her to give divorce to the applicant. Due to instigation of the mother-in-law of the respondent no.2, the applicant was giving her mental and physical torture as well as tauting her. Not only that they used mental and physical cruelty to the respondent no.2. That applicant did not taken her and not tried to keep her back at her marital home or did not made any arrangement to maintain her. That respondent no.2 has no source of income whereas the applicant was doing gold smith work and earning Rs. 30,000/-to Rs. 35,000/- per month and by doing cutlery business, deducting all the expenses, he was earning Rs. 20,000/- monthly and thus in all the income of the applicant was worth Rs. 50,000/- That, mother of the applicant was serving in Anganvadi and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and applicant has no any responsibility except him. Ultimately, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 has requested to dismiss present application. In support of his arguments learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 has placed reliance on the judgments reported in AIR 2016 SC 2161 and AIR 2019 SC 4748 . 5. Learned APP for the respondent-State has requested to pass necessary orders as the dispute is pertaining to husband and wife. 6. In support of his arguments learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 has placed reliance on the judgments reported in AIR 2016 SC 2161 and AIR 2019 SC 4748 . 5. Learned APP for the respondent-State has requested to pass necessary orders as the dispute is pertaining to husband and wife. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties as well as learned APP for the respondent-State and facts of the case as well as available record, it appears that main grievance raised by the present applicant is that the respondent no.2 has not proved that she was converted from Muslim to Hindu by religion and had performed marriage with the present applicant as per the Hindu rites and rituals. That, marriage of the respondent no.2 with the applicant is not being proved, and therefore, she is not entitled for any of the maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The further grievance is raised by the applicant that no witness was examined by the respondent no.2 from Hindu Maha Sabha establishing her marriage with the present applicant and document Ex. 14 nor conversion of religion of respondent no.2 could not have been executed because the responsible person was not examined who had issued certificate. From the petition as well as written statements of the respective parties before the family court and through their testimonies, it appears that the respondent no.2- wife in her deposition recorded before the Family Court vide Ex. 9 has clearly stated about her love affair with the present applicant, converted herself and accepted the Hindu religion on 28th July 2014, by performing Hindu rituals, and thereafter, married with the present applicant, registration of her marriage with the Hindu Maha Sabha, Khadiya at Ahmedabad on 28th July 2014 was clearly stated on oath by her. After her marriage with the applicant, she had started her marriage life at her matrimonial home Limbadi. Her mother-in-law denied to accept her saying that as she was from Muslim community and converted herself her religion as Hindu, she could not be permitted to be a daughter-in-law, and therefore, she herself and present applicant were not accepted. They started to live in a rented house at Village Rajpur, Ta: Kadi, wherein they were passing their marriage life in a comfortable manner. They started to live in a rented house at Village Rajpur, Ta: Kadi, wherein they were passing their marriage life in a comfortable manner. However, mother-in-law was frequently visiting at Rajpur and threatening her in absence of her husband as well as pressurizing her for divorce and on account of instigation of her mother-in-law, in a petty matters, applicant had started mental and physical cruelty to her. She became pregnant on account of her relation with the applicant but miscarriage was done due to torture of the applicant. She was deserted before one and half years by her mother-in-law, and thereafter, she was passing her life at her parental home without any source of income. The applicant was not ready and happy to call back her or to take her care. She has further stated that the business of the applicant is at Limbadi as well as Surendranagar and engaged himself in jewellery business as well as running cutlery shop. His income was stated by her in her deposition as Rs. 50,000/- per month. Mother of the applicant was serving in Anganwadi at Limbadi and getting Rs. 10,000/- per month by way of salary. She was cross-examined by the present applicant through his learned advocate, wherein she denied that no rituals performance was made to convert her religion from Muslim to Hindu. She has further denied that her mother had lodged a complaint against her and false documents of marriage were created. She has also accepted that one complaint under Section 376 of IPC was lodged by her against the applicant and her mother-in-law and one unknown person. She has further denied that no religion was converted by her and she never stayed with the applicant as a wife or she was never married with the applicant. It appears that vide Ex. 14, a certificate dated 28th July 2014 of conversion of religion was produced by the respondent no.2 issued by Gujarat Pradesh Hindu Maha Sabha in favour of the respondent no.2. Another marriage certificate was also produced vide Exh. 15 in favour of the present applicant married with the respondent no.2 on the very same dated i.e., 28th July 2014. Photographs of the parties were annexed under their signatures. Present applicant-husband was also examined vide Ex. 19 wherein he has denied his marriage with the respondent no.2-wife or any relation with her as husband and wife. 15 in favour of the present applicant married with the respondent no.2 on the very same dated i.e., 28th July 2014. Photographs of the parties were annexed under their signatures. Present applicant-husband was also examined vide Ex. 19 wherein he has denied his marriage with the respondent no.2-wife or any relation with her as husband and wife. As per his evidence, respondent no.2 never stayed at her home as a daughter-in-law or accepted by his mother. It appears from his cross-examination that former husband of the respondent no.2 was in contact with the present applicant and after his death, he came into contact with the respondent no.2. As she was facing financial crunch and on her request, with his influence, she got a job in Sahajanand Shopping Centre, Surendranagar, and thereafter, they were frequently meeting. He has accepted that he himself and respondent no.2 have visited the Hindu Maha Sabha at Ahmedabad, but has denied of conversion of religion of Hindu by respondent no.2 after performing Hindu rituals and registration of their marriage. Of course, he has accepted his signature and photographs annexed at Ex. 15. As per his statement, he had no idea of converting Hindu religion by the respondent no.2. He has accepted that both were absconded from Ahmedabad as they had apprehension of their arrest. He has also accepted that at the difference places, they were moving and staying. Thereafter, they were voluntarily stayed in a village but were staying at the different places. He has also accepted that both of them visited Ahmedabad, Ambaji, Abu, Rajpur, Surat and thereafter, returned to Ahmedabad. He is engaged in a business of goldsmith. His mother was also serving in the Anganwadi. The certificates Exh. 14 and 15 as well as evidence of the applicant himself staying at different places with the respondent no.2 for a certain period clearly proves their relations as husband and wife. He also admits that his relation with the former husband of the respondent no.2 helping him during his treatment period, he came into contact of the respondent no.2 and after the death of her husband, he secured job for respondent no.2 through his friend, as she was facing financial crisis, visiting office of Hindu Maha Sabha at Ahmedabad, admitting photographs and signatures in the certificate of marriage registration Ex. 15 and staying with the respondent no.2 at difference places clearly proves that both of them were enjoying their marriage life. 7. Learned Family Court has rightly considered the evidence produced before him by awarding maintenance amount of Rs.3000/- per month in favour of the respondent no.2-wife. Hon'ble Apex Court, in case of Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav, reported in 2016 AIR (SC) 2161, has observed as under: “Under Section 7(1) Explanation (b), a suit or a proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of both marriage and matrimonial status of a person is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court, since under Section 8, all those jurisdictions covered under Section 7 are excluded from the purview of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. In case, there is a dispute on the matrimonial status of any person, a declaration in that regard has to be sought only before the Family Court. It makes no difference as to whether it is an affirmative relief or a negative relief. What is important is the declaration regarding the matrimonial status. Section 20 also endorses the view which we have taken, since the Family Courts Act 1984, has an overriding effect on other laws. Hon'ble Apex Court, in case of Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and Anrs, reported in AIR 2019 SC 4748 , has observed as under: “No doubt, as argued by Mr. Debal Banerjee, explanation II to Section 125 of the Cr.PC. by deeming fiction includes a divorced woman to be a wife and, therefore, a woman who has been divorced by her husband can still claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The question is how we should read the provisions of sub section (4) in this regard, especially when we deal with those women, against whom a decree for divorce has been obtained on the ground that they have deserted their husband. Once the relationship of marriage comes to an end, the woman obviously is not under any obligation to live with her former husband. The deeming fiction of the divorced wife being treated a a wife can only be read for the limited purpose for grant of maintenance and the deeming fiction cannot be stretched to the illogical extent that the divorced wife is under a compulsion to live with the ex-husband. The deeming fiction of the divorced wife being treated a a wife can only be read for the limited purpose for grant of maintenance and the deeming fiction cannot be stretched to the illogical extent that the divorced wife is under a compulsion to live with the ex-husband. The husband cannot urge that he can divorce his wife on the ground that she has deserted him and then deny maintenance which should otherwise be payable to her on the ground that even after divorce she is not willing to live with him. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention of mr. Debal Banerjee.” 8. However, respondent no.2-wife is not a divorced wife as per the evidence, she is legally wedded wife of the present applicant and was deserted by her husband by giving mental as well as physical cruelty. In this view of the matter and facts, this court deems not find any merit in the present revision application, and therefore, accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 19.03.2019 passed by learned Family Court, Surendranagar in Criminal Misc. Application No.402 of 2018 stands confirmed. 9. Rule stands discharged.