G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) WIFE and son of the petitioner - herein filed M. C. No. 2/88 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Bichkunda for maintenance under S. 125, Cr. P. C. that was contested by the husband - petitioner herein on the ground that the wife, Ist respondent - herein is not entitled to maintenance as she is his second wife and his first wife is living. So far as the son is concerned Rs. 100. 00 was granted as maintenance and the claim is so far as the Ist respondent - wife is concerned, it was rejected. The maintenance to son, i. e. , the 2nd respondent was granted on the ground that even under S. 125, Cr. P. C. an illegitimate son or child is entitled to claim maintenance. Against that, they preferred a revision to the Sessions Court in Crl. R. P. No. 3 of 1990 and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad granted Rs. 200. 00 to the Ist respondent and Rs. 150. 00 to the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by that order, the husband - petitioner herein filed this revision.

( 2 ) B. PRAKASARAO, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the grant of maintenance to the Ist respondent - herein is contrary to law inasmuch as, the petitioner is having his first wife living and their marriage is subsisting and that the petitioner had not married the Ist respondent. He contended further that so long as the first wife of a Hindu is living and their marriage is subsisting, the question of contacting second marriage does not arise and if the second marriage takes place it is hit by the provisions of S. 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act and becomes a void marriage. Therefore, he contended that the Ist respondent - herein is not at all entitled to claim maintenance. So far as the maintenance granted to the 2nd respondent, he contended that the maintenance amount is on the high side and it is liable to be reduced.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, Sri Mallareddy, counsel for the respondents contended that as the parentage of the 2nd respondent is not disputed by the petitioner the child is entitled to maintenance. He further contended that the Ist petitioner is also entitled to maintenance for the reason that the petitioner lived with her for some time and begot a child through her by enjoying her. Moreover, he submits that according to the caste custom of the parties in this case a second marriage is permissible.

( 4 ) SRI Prakasarao, in support of his contention that the Ist respondent is not entitled to any amount of maintenance relied on a ruling of the Supreme Court in Yamuna Bai Ananta Rao Adhav v. Anant Rao Snivran Adhav, 1988 (1) ALT NRC 81 : (1988 Cri LJ 793 ). In that decision the Supreme Court held (at page 795 (of Cri LJ) : "section 5 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act lays down for lawful marriage the necessary condition is that neither party should have a spouse living at the time of the marriage. A marriage in contravention of this condition is, therefore, null and void. While the legislature his considered it advisable to uphold the legitimacy of the paternity of a child born out of a void marriage, it has not extended a similar protection in respect of the mother of the child. " The Court further observed (at page 797 (of Cri LJ)) : "for the purpose of extending the benefit of the section to a divorced woman and an illegitimate child the Parliament considered it necessary to include in the section specific provisions to that effect, but has not done so with respect to women not lawfully married. "

( 5 ) FROM the above observations of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the Ist respondent - wife is not entitled to any maintenance as she is not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. I see force in the contention of Sri Prakasarao that the revisional Court committed an error in granting maintenance to the Ist respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner is having his first wife living and their marriage is subsisting as on today. The contention of Sri Mallareddy that the Ist respondent is entitled to maintenance as the peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document