JUDGMENT

K. Natarajan, J. - This revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) assailing the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class-III, Mysore in Crl. Mis. No. 10/2009 dated 13.11.2009 (hereinafter referred to as trial Court) for having allowed the petition in part and granting maintenance to the respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short D.V. Act) and the same was upheld by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore (hereinafter referred to as First Appellate Court) in Crl.A. No. 109/2011 dated 10.02.2012.

2. Heard the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The rank of the parties before the trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the petition under Section 12 D.V. Act came to be filed before the trial Court through the Child Development Project Officer, Mysore alleging that the petitioner T. Prema Tangavelu has contended that she has married to the respondent on 25.08.2005 at Sri. Manjunatha Temple at Dharmastala with the presence of elders and well wishers. Prior to that, the petitioner was married to one Tangavelu and obtained the decree of Divorce and thereafter got married to the respondent. The petitioner is having one male child and one female child from her 1st husband. After marriage with the respondent, the petitioner taken the respondent to her parents house and they were living happily for sometime. Later, the respondent started to visit the house of the petitioner once in a month and not shown any interest to set up a separate matrimonial home at his place and not provided house-hold articles and basic necessities. He never spent his quality time and income for the welfare of the family. The petitioner approached the Mahila Sangha on 17.05.2008 and she approached Women Protection Officer and the respondent is also said to have given undertaking and later not shown any interest. Hence, the said application came to be filed seeking maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month towards food, clothing, childrens education and treatment.

5. The respondent appeared through his counsel before the trial Court and filed objection by denying the averments made in the petition as false and stated that the petitioner approached the respondent seeking financial help and the respondent helped the petitioner two times only on humanitarian ground and by taking advantage of this, the petitioner came up with the false story and tried to gain illegally. The respondent is a reputed person having wife, three children and also grand children and hence, prayed for dismissing of the petition.

6. On behalf of the petitioner, petitioner herself examined as PW. 1 and got marked 17 documents and on behalf of the respondent, he himself examined as RW. 1 and got marked two documents. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court allowed the petition in part and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A. No. 109/2011 under Section 29 of the D.V. Act which came to be dismissed and up held the order of the trial Court. Assailing the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of revision petition.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the order under revision passed by the trial Court is unsustainable in the law. The respondent has not at all proved the marriage with the petitioner and further contended that the petitioner/alleged wife failed to prove the marriage with the respondent. Even otherwise, if the alleged marriage is admitted, the respondent is a married man having wife and three children, grand children, such being the case, the marriage itself is a void marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.