S.N. Deedwania, J. - (1.)This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Code Criminal Procedure is against the order dated 9-5-1980 of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, whereby criminal revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
(2.)Briefly stated the relevant facts are these. Non-petitioner Magnadevi filed a petition under section 125 Code Criminal Procedure in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi with the allegation that she was not married to Trilok Chand according to the custom prevalent in the community in year 1972. After a year Trilok Chand left her and, therefore, she filed a petition for maintenance. The parties filed a compromise and, therefore, it was dismissed. In the compromise petition, Trilok Chand has unequivocally admitted that Magnadevi was his wife. Trilok Chand again neglected and refused to maintain Magnadevi. It is further alleged that Trilok Chand is a class IV Railway employee drawing a salary of Rs. 250 p.m. Magnadevi has no source of livelihood. She claimed Rs. 100 p.m. for maintenance. The learned trial as well as the revisional court came to conclusion that Magnadevi was the married wife of Trilok Chand and that she should be paid maintenance at Rs. 100 p.m.
(3.)It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the record it is not established that Magnadevi had been married to Trilok Chand. In any case the petition is not maintainable because it was not alleged in the petition that Magnadevi was unable to maintain herself. On the other hand the learned counsel for the non-petitioner supported the judgment of the two Courts below and further argued that the scope of Sec. 482 in such circumstances is very narrow and it is not a fit case where the inherent power of this court should be exercised. I have considered the rival submissions. Normally this Court will not interfere in a petition under Sec. 482 filed by the petitioner where he is availed of the legal remedies available to him under the law. In this connection I may refer to the following observations made in the case of Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR Bombay 47 :-
"At the outset the following principles may be noticed in relation to the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court which have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably barring a few exceptions:-

(1) That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party :

(2) That it should be exercised very soaringly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice ;

(3) That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.

On a plain reading of Sec. 482, however it would follow that nothing in the Code, which would include sub-section (2) of Sec. 397 also, "shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court."

Since the case has been argued before me in great length however, I have briefly noticed the rival submissions. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the compromise Ex. P. 1, in which it is thus stated:-

It is, therefore, argued that in this compromise there is no clear admission of the petitioner that Magnadevi was never married to him. He further drew my attention to the statement of Magnadevi wherein she stated that she had been married to Trilok Chand. However, she further stated that she was married in Mahsana court but no document was executed in presence of the Presiding Officer of the Court. I have considered the argument carefully. It is well settled that an application under section 125 Code Criminal Procedure is only maintainable by a legally wedded wife. Reference to this regard may be made to:-

1. Banshidhar Jha Vs. Chabai Chatterji, 1967 Patna 277; 2. Bai Bhanbai Mavji Vs. Kanbi Karshan Devraj and another, AIR 1970 Gujarat 137; 3. A.T. Lakshmi Ambalam Vs. Andiammal, AIR 1958 Madras 36.
However, it is also well settled that standard of proof in proceedings for maintenance under the Code Criminal Procedure for a marriage is not so high as is in proceedings under the other Acts. The reason is that proceedings under Sec. 125 Code Criminal Procedure are summary ones. Reference in this connection may be made to the following authorities:-
1. Vanajakshamma and others Vs. P. Gopala Krishna, AIR 1970 Mysore 305; 2. Govindan Nadar Vs. Ratna Bai Pushpa Bai, 1979 M.L.R. 22.

Magnadevi had relied heavily on the admission of Trilok Chand. It may be that she was married to Trilok Chand according to customary rites in the compound of Mahsana court. She was not sufficiently cross-examined on this point. Trilok Chand has not tried to explain this admission and gave a false explanation that he did not consciously or voluntarily made this compromise. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the courts below rightly placed reliance on the admission of Trilok Chand which was sufficient as a matter of proof in an enquiry under Sec. 125 Code Criminal Procedure The courts below have also referred to some other evidence. I am, therefore of the view that it is not a fit case where the factum or validity of marriage should be re-opened in a petition under Sec. 482 Criminal Procedure Code.