O.P.Garg, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Amar Nath Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent No. 2. Smt. Nanhi had filed a petition No. 33 of 1996 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for dissolution of marriage against the present petitioner. During the pendency of the said Matrimonial petition, respondent No. 2 moved an application under Section 24 of the Act claiming pendente life alimony and litigation expenses. This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 36 of 1997. Learned trial court, by the impugned order dated 13.1.1999, has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000 as litigation expenses and Rs. 600 In total as pendente lite alimony (Rs. 400 for the maintenance of Smt. Nanhi, wife and Rs. 200 for the maintenance of the daughter). This order has been challenged by the petitioner primarily on the ground that his marriage was never solemnized with the respondent No. 2 and. therefore, question of payment of any pendente lite and litigation expenses to a woman, who is stranger to him, does not arise. Sri A. N. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C., initiated by respondent No. 2, it has been held that she is not legally wedded wife of the petitioner and that the daughter for whom pendente lite was claimed was not born out of the wed-lock in between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. It was urged that the finding recorded in proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C., would operate as res judicata in the application under Section 24 of the Act and, therefore, the trial court was not justified in awarding the amount of litigation expenses and pendente lite.
(2.) So far as the question of findings of fact recorded by the criminal court in proceedings under Section 125. Cr. P.C. is concerned, they are irrelevant for the purpose of the petition under Section 24 of the Act. Whatever has been said in a criminal case about the relationship of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 is of no consequence. A finding, if at all, given in a criminal case does not operate as res judicata in a civil suit/petition. Even otherwise, it would appear that there is no concrete finding recorded by the Criminal Court in proceeding under Section 125. Cr. P.C. that the respondent No. 2 is not wife of the petitioner. By order dated 11.1.1994, Judicial Magistrate concerned has awarded a sum of Rs. 250 and Rs. 1,250 respectively as maintenance for the wife and the daughter under the provision of Section 125, Cr. P.C. The present petitioner filed a revision application No. 11 of 1994 which was allowed on 8.11.1996 and the case was remanded for recording of fresh evidence on the concession made by the parties and their counsel. As it is, therefore, no concluded finding has been recorded by the criminal court that the respondent No. 2 was not married to the petitioner.
(3.) The mere fact that the respondent in a matrimonial petition denies the factum of marriage is no bar to the power of the Court to make an order under Section 24. Of course, a good prima facie case about the marriage would have to be made out by the petitioner before any such order could be made by the Court in case of any such contention being raised by the respondent. In this connection a reference may be made to Jain v. Jain, (68) AC 405.;