Point of law: in the absence of material to show that the respondent's alieged first marriage with Smt. Prameela said to have taken place in 1974 was to the knowledge of the petitioner in the Family court before her marriage with the respondent on 03.06.1982 and the facts which reveal that they ied family life together for few years and begot a child by name Jagadeep it cannot be said that the petitioner is a stranger to the respondent and that she cannot claim the status of wife of the respondent for the purpose of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

1. The present respondent as the petitioner in C. Misc. No.355/2010 had filed a petition under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the present petitioner arraigning him as respondent in the Court of V Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru (for brevity, ‘Family court’), seeking a maintenance of Rs.25,000/-per month to her from the respondent and Rs.10,000/-towards litigation expenses.

2. The summary of the case of the petitioner in the Family court was that her marriage with the respondent (present petitioner) took place on 03.06.1982 at Sri Sampangiramaswamy Temple, Bannerghatta, as per Hindu rites and customs out of which wedlock, a male child by name B. Jagadeep was born to her. It was her further averment that though the respondent was working at ISRO and drawing a handsome salary of Rs.50,000/-per month and also had other sources for income like rent, agricultural income etc., he was not caring to maintain her and her family which forced her to file a petition in C.Misc.355/2010. The matter was contested by the respondent therein.

In order to prove her case, the petitioner in the Family Court examined herself as P.W.1 and examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked documents from Exs.P1 to P10 and closed her side. The respondent in the Family court examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked five documents as Exs.R1 to R5. After hearing both side, the Family court by its Order dated 08.03.2016 partly allowed the petition filed by the petitioner therein and directed the respondent therein to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/-per month to the petitioner – wife payable to her from the date of filing the petition till her life time or until her re-marriage and Rs.3,000/-towards litigation expenses. Challenging the same, the respondent in the Family court has preferred the present revision petition.

3. The Family Court records were called for and the same are placed before the Court.

4. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the memorandum of petition, impugned Judgment and the materials placed before the Court including the Family Court records.

5. The only point that would arise for my consideration is whether the impugned order of the Family Court suffers from any illegality, irregularity or perversity warranting interference at the hands of this Court?

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that the Trial Court did not properly consider the factor of alleged marriage between the parties. He submitted that undue reliance was given on the evidence of P.W.2 and exhibits P3 and P4, the photographs. He also submitted that admittedly the petitioner herein was already married prior to his alleged marriage with the present respondent. As such, the alleged second marriage since being a void marriage, the respondent herein being the alleged second wife, she is not entitled for maintenance. In his support, he relied upon two Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another reported in (1988) 1 SCC 530 and Badshah Vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and Another reported in (2014) 1 SCC 188.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent in his arguments submitted that by virtue of the marriage invitation card and evidence of P.W.2 and also the school progress cards, the marital relationship between the parties stands proved and the present petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case. He further submitted that under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., like a Civil Court, a probe regarding the marriage need not be conducted, a prima facie case is sufficient. In his support, he relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another reported in (1999) 7 SCC 675.

8. The only disputed fact between the parties is the alleged marriage which according to the petitioner in the Family court (alleged wife) has taken place on 03.06.1982 with the respondent therein at Sri Sampangiramaswamy Temple, Bannergha