JUDGMENT : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 27/08/2018 passed by the 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, in Criminal Revision No.97/2019 and the judgment and order dated 25/04/2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Murtizapur, in Criminal Case No.216/2010, wherein the maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was granted to the respondent-wife herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that: The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 03/06/2008 at Gram Panchayat Sonori, Taluqa Murtizapur, District Akola. The marriage between them is a second marriage as the first wife of the petitioner died due to cancer, so also, the husband of respondent, namely, Harish Goroba Shinde passed away. After one month of marriage, the petitioner started ill-treating and harassing the respondent, and therefore, a discord arose between them. It is alleged that the petitioner and his son- Rahul started abusing, harrasing and ill-treating her. The family members of the petitioner started beating her mercilessly, and also demanded Rs. 30,000/-. The respondents was driven out of house, therefore she was residing with her parents. Accordingly, on 08/12/2010, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C against the petitioner bearing Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.216/2010 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Murtizapur. The petitioner contested the claim filed by the respondent by filing his Written Statement. 4. It appears from the record that during the pendency of the Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.216/2010, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 54/2012 alleging that respondent herein committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and also Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.120/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In both these cases, allegation of forgery as well as using forged documents to avail the benefits of the Government schemes like Scholarship for daughter is alleged. In both these cases, the Magistrate proceeded under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and those proceedings are still pending in the Competent Courts. Even in those cases, issue process order was passed by the respective Courts after getting the enquiry report from the police. 5. In both these cases, the Magistrate proceeded under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and those proceedings are still pending in the Competent Courts. Even in those cases, issue process order was passed by the respective Courts after getting the enquiry report from the police. 5. After leading the evidence in Misc. Criminal Case No.216/2010, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class was pleased to allow the application and granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to the respondent from the date of the application. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision bearing No.97/2016. The said Criminal Revision was dismissed by the 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola on 27/08/2018, and therefore, against both these orders the petitioner has filed the present petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent at length. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage between petitioner and respondent solemnized on 03/06/2008 is not in dispute, however, he submits that the marriage is a void marriage for the reason that the respondent had filed false and fabricated death certificate of her earlier husband, namely, Harish Shinde, before the Gram Panchayat, Sonori, where the marriage between the present petitioner and respondent was solemnized. It is contended that when the first marriage is in existence, the second marriage becomes void. The present marriage is void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as the condition specified in clause (I) of Section 5 is contravened, which states that for a valid marriage, neither party should have a spouse living at the time of marriage. It was impressed on the petitioner by the respondent, that the first husband was dead. Therefore, the petitioner has performed the second marriage with the respondent. It was also submitted that the petitioner has duly proved that the death certificate is forged by adducing cogent evidence, and therefore, after adducing the evidence in respect of forgery of the death certificate, the onus is shifted on the respondent in order to prove the fact that the husband of the respondent is dead. It was also submitted that the petitioner has duly proved that the death certificate is forged by adducing cogent evidence, and therefore, after adducing the evidence in respect of forgery of the death certificate, the onus is shifted on the respondent in order to prove the fact that the husband of the respondent is dead. He further submits that it is the respondent who has produced the death certificate with an application before the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat who is the Competent Authority under Section 6 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and he is the competent officer to maintain the record, so the onus as per Section 108 as well as Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 being a special fact within the knowledge of the respondent, is upon the respondent. Therefore, both the Courts below have committed a grave error in ignoring the fact and the law, and accordingly, prayed to allow the petition. So as to substantiate the aforesaid arguments, he has relied on following judgments: (1) Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC 530 (2) Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Vs. State of Gujrat and Others, AIR 2005 SC 1809 (3) Vimala (K.) Vs Veeraswamy (K.), (1991) 2 SCC 375 (4) D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469 (5) Indu Nimba Pawar Vs. Sou Sumanbai Kadu Pawar and Others, 1996 (3) Bom. C.R. 606 (6) Atmaram Tukaram Suradkar Vs. Trivenibai Atmaram Suradkar, 2005 All M.R. (Cri.) 1177 (7) N. Jayalakshmi Ammal and Another Vs. R. Gopala Pathar and Another, AIR 1995 SC 995 (8) Bajirao Raghoba Tambre Vs. Tolanbai (Miss) D/o Bhagwan Toge and Another, 1979 Bom. C.R. 545 (9) L.I.C. of India Vs. Anuradha, AIR 2004 SC 2070 (10) Bhanumati Dayaram Mhatre Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2008 (6) Bom. C.R. 311 (11) Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivaram Adhav, AIR 1988 SC 644 (12) Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Vs. State of Gujrat and Others, AIR 2005 SC 1809 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has not committed any forgery and in order to avoid paying the maintenance, the petitioner has taken a false plea. He further submits that the marriage between the present petitioner and the respondent is solemnized and there is no dispute that the respondent is a legally wedded wife of the petitioner. He further submits that the marriage between the present petitioner and the respondent is solemnized and there is no dispute that the respondent is a legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The claim of the respondent cannot be denied only on the basis of the so called forged death certificate of her earlier husband-Harish and the burden as per Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act which states that a person who asserts existence of any fact must prove that those facts exists is on the petitioner to prove that the death certificate is forged one. The petitioner has utterly failed to prove that the husband of the petitioner is alive, and that earlier marriage is in existence. In the absence of legal evidence, the subsistence of first marriage cannot be accepted and the onus is on the petitioner. In the absence of these two important factors, the claim of the petitioner in respect of maintenance is intact. He further submits that the petitioner in order to harass the respondent has filed Civil and Criminal cases against her and though the criminal as well as civil cases were filed long back in the year 2010 and 2012, still the petitioner is not able to conclude those proceedings, and therefore, in the absence of the finding in those cases, merely on the contentions of the petitioner, maintenance cannot be denied. So as to substantiate his contentions he has placed reliance on following judgments: (1) Smt. Shiramabai W/o Pundalik Bhave Vs. The Captain, Record Officer for O.I.C. Records, 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 772 (2) Smt. N. Usha Rani and Another Vs. Moodudula Srinivas, 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 271 9. Upon considering the rival submission of the parties and after perusing the impugned orders as well as the evidence placed on record, it appears that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 03/06/2008 and it is their second marriage. It appears from the record that in order to substantiate the case of the respondent-wife, has led her evidence at Exh.-12 by filing her affidavit-in-chief and has relied on the registered marriage certificate at Exh.-52 and extract of marriage register at Exh.-53. On the other hand, the petitioner-husband has amongst other documents relied on the death certificate of Harish Shinde at Exh.-90. 10. It is necessary to reproduce relevant part of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 :- “125. On the other hand, the petitioner-husband has amongst other documents relied on the death certificate of Harish Shinde at Exh.-90. 10. It is necessary to reproduce relevant part of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 :- “125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.- (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain— (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself. Explanation—For the purposes of this Chapter— (b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.” So far as the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, the important ingredients which are to be satisfied for grant of maintenance to wife are that (i) A person having sufficient means (ii) neglects or refuses to maintain, and (iii) who is unable to maintain herself. 11. If the present case is considered, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance on the ground that she is wife, unable to maintain herself and the petitioner is having sufficient means, and accordingly, prayed to grant maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of application as the petitioner is getting salary of Rs.17,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. 12. It further appears that both the parties have led their evidence and much emphasis was placed at Exh.-90 Death certificate of Harish Shinde. The said document was placed on record by the petitioner. However, while conducting the cross- examination of witness No.2- Ravindra on behalf of the petitioner, it was tried to brought on record that death certificate was forged one. According to witness-Ravindra, there is no entry in the birth and death register of Harish Shinde. Before the police he has stated that the said death certificate is forged. 13. Even presuming the fact that the death certificate is forged, that by itself would not be sufficient to deny the claim of the respondent. In the entire evidence, it was not brought on record by the petitioner that the earlier marriage is still in existence or subsisting, and therefore, the marriage is void. Without dwelling much on this aspect, it is necessary to consider Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that a person who asserts existence of a fact must prove those facts. Without dwelling much on this aspect, it is necessary to consider Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that a person who asserts existence of a fact must prove those facts. Here, the petitioner has failed to prove the existence of earlier marriage, and therefore, it cannot be said that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is void. However, even presuming that for the sake of discussion the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is void, still the respondent is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. as was in the words of Justice Krishna Iyer in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal Vs. Veena Kaushal and Others, (1978) 4 SCC 70 “This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advance the cause — the cause of the derelicts.” 14. Further in the case of Vimala (K) vs. Veeraswamy (K), (1991) 2 SCC 375 , the Supreme Court in Paragraph No.3 as under: “Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. When an attempt is made by the husband to negative the claim of the neglected wife depicting her as a kept-mistress on the specious plea that he was already married, the court would insist on strict proof of the earlier marriage. The term ‘wife’ in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, includes a woman who has been divorced by a husband or who has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. The woman not having the legal status of a wife is thus brought within the inclusive definition of the term ‘wife’ consistent with the objective. The term ‘wife’ in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, includes a woman who has been divorced by a husband or who has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. The woman not having the legal status of a wife is thus brought within the inclusive definition of the term ‘wife’ consistent with the objective. However, under the law a second wife whose marriage is void on account of the survival of the first marriage is not a legally wedded wife and is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance under this provision. Therefore, the law which disentitles the second wife from receiving maintenance from her husband under Section 125, CrPC, for the sole reason that the marriage ceremony though performed in the customary form lacks legal sanctity can be applied only when the husband satisfactorily proves the subsistence of a legal and valid marriage particularly when the provision in the Code is a measure of social justice intended to protect women and children. We are unable to find that the respondent herein has discharged the heavy burden by tendering strict proof of the fact in issue. The High Court failed to consider the standard of proof required and has proceeded on no evidence whatsoever in determining the question against the appellant. We are, therefore, unable to agree that the appellant is not entitled to maintenance.” 15. While considering both these judgments, the Supreme Court in the latest Judgment in the case of Smt. N. Usha Rani and Anr. Vs. Moodudula Srinivas, 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 271 in Paragraph No.10, while considering the issue whether a woman is entitled to claim maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC from her second husband while her first marriage is allegedly legally subsisting has given a positive finding after considering various judgments, and accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The following observations in Smt. N. Usha Rani (supra), are important which touches the aspect of ‘Social Justice’. Paragraph Nos. 17 and 18 are reproduced below:- “17. This encapsulates the full scope and gravity of considerations before this Court as we deliberate on the issue at hand. The present case does not concern a live-in relationship. The Family Court made a factual finding that Appellant No. 1 married the Respondent and that finding is not disputed by the Respondent. 17 and 18 are reproduced below:- “17. This encapsulates the full scope and gravity of considerations before this Court as we deliberate on the issue at hand. The present case does not concern a live-in relationship. The Family Court made a factual finding that Appellant No. 1 married the Respondent and that finding is not disputed by the Respondent. Instead, the Respondent seeks to defeat the right to maintenance by claiming that his marriage to Appellant No. 1 is void ab initio as her first marriage is still subsisting. Two other pertinent facts must be considered: firstly, it is not the case of the Respondent that the truth was concealed from him. In fact, the Family Court makes a specific finding that Respondent was fully aware of the first marriage of the Appellant No. 1. Therefore, Respondent knowingly entered into a marriage with Appellant No. 1 not once, but twice. Secondly, Appellant No. 1 places before this Court an MoU of separation with her first husband. While this is not a legal decree of divorce, it also emerges from this document and other evidence that the parties have dissolved their ties, they have been living separately and Appellant No. 1 is not deriving maintenance from her first husband. Therefore, barring the absence of a legal decree, Appellant No. 1 is de facto separated from her first husband and is not deriving any rights and entitlements as a consequence of that marriage. 18. In the opinion of this Court, when the social justice objective of maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC is considered against the particular facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot, in good conscience, deny maintenance to Appellant No. 1. It is settled law that social welfare provisions must be subjected to an expansive and beneficial construction and this understanding has been extended to maintenance since Ramesh Chander (supra). An alternate interpretation would not only explicitly defeat the purpose of the provision by permitting vagrancy and destitution, but would also give legal sanction to the actions of the Respondent in knowingly entering into a marriage with Appellant No.1, availing its privileges but escaping its consequent duties and obligations. The only conceivable mischief that could arise in permitting a beneficial interpretation is that the Appellant No.1 could claim dual maintenance--however, that is not the case under the present facts. The only conceivable mischief that could arise in permitting a beneficial interpretation is that the Appellant No.1 could claim dual maintenance--however, that is not the case under the present facts. We are aware that this Court has previously denied maintenance in cases of subsisting marriages [See Yamunabai (supra) and Bakulabai (supra)]. However, a plea of separation from the first marriage was not made in those cases and hence, they are factually distinguishable. It must be borne in mind that the right to maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC is not a benefit received by a wife but rather a legal and moral duty owed by the husband.” 16. Insofar as the present petition is concerned, the facts as crystallised are that the witness No.1 who is the wife and witness-Ravindra Rathod who is the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Sonori, in whose presence marriage between petitioner and respondent took place, specifically deposed that on 03/06/2008 marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized at about 10:00 a.m. Therefore, one fact is clear that marriage between them was solemnized. The respondent also proved that she is unable to maintain herself, and therefore, she has filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It is further brought on record that the petitioner is having sufficient means. Accordingly, for grant of maintenance, the petitioner has duly proved the ingredients provided under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Insofar as other issues are concerned, petitioner has utterly failed to bring on record that the marriage between the respondent and Harish who is her earlier husband is still in existence. Merely saying that the death certificate of deceased-Harish is forged would not lead to a conclusion that Harish is alive. 17. It would be necessary to mention at this juncture that petitioner has filed as many as two cases against the respondent, wherein the issue of forged death certificate of Harish is involved, which are still pending though more than 10-15 years have elapsed. Therefore, I refrain myself from giving any finding in respect of the death certificate at Exh.-90. 17. It would be necessary to mention at this juncture that petitioner has filed as many as two cases against the respondent, wherein the issue of forged death certificate of Harish is involved, which are still pending though more than 10-15 years have elapsed. Therefore, I refrain myself from giving any finding in respect of the death certificate at Exh.-90. It would also be necessary to mention that Regular Civil Suit No.336/2017 was also filed by the petitioner seeking declaration and injunction to hold and declare that the marriage certificate dated 03/06/2008 issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat is illegal and arbitrary and further prayer was made to refrain respondent from using the name of the petitioner, even this suit is still pending. Therefore, only question I have considered is whether the respondent is entitled for maintenance amount under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and whether the Courts below have committed any error in granting the maintenance to the respondent herein. 18. From the above discussions and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. N. Usha Rani (supra), while considering the scope of ‘wife’ under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. the Supreme Court invoking its social justice prerogatives, affirmed that a second wife could claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. even if her first marriage is subsisting. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the respondent is entitled for the maintenance. Both the Courts concurrently held that respondent-wife is entitled for maintenance. This finding of fact cannot be disturbed unless the contrary is brought on record. The reliance placed by the petitioner on Sections 106, 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act is misplaced and does not require detailed finding in the present facts and circumstances of the case. It is further to be noted that the petitioner has relied on many judgments as stated supra. However, in all those judgments, the facts are different or the law which is discussed does not have any bearing on the present petition, and therefore, those judgments are not applicable to the fact situation of the present case. So far as maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are concerned, the parameters are different. It is solace to a destitute woman who is praying for grant of maintenance. 19. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the petition. So far as maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are concerned, the parameters are different. It is solace to a destitute woman who is praying for grant of maintenance. 19. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the petition. Hence, the following order:- ORDER : (i) The Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed. (ii) Rule stands discharged.