A wife can claim maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code only if she is legally wedded to the husband. If the marriage is null and void and in contravention of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, the marriage being illegal, such wife cannot claim maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT - S.W. PURANIK, J.:---Both these revisions are directed against the same judgment arising out of Criminal Revision Application No. 15/83 decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 11-7-1980. Hence both these applications are disposed of by common order.

2. These applications relate to maintenance proceedings between husband and wife. The Criminal Revision Application No. 276/80 is preferred by Smt. Kamlabai w/o Laxmanrao Sarode, the alleged wife of non-applicant Laxmanrao while Criminal Application No. 452/80 under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is preferred by the husband Laxmanrao against his alleged wife Kamlabai and daughter Ku. Geeta. Initially Smt. Kamlabai along with her minor daughter Geeta had preferred proceedings under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code against Laxmanrao claiming maintenance from him on the ground that she was the legally married wife of Laxmanrao; that Geeta is the daughter born out of the said wedlock and that Kamlabai being unable to maintain herself as well as her daughter, she had a right to claim maintenance from her husband Laxmanrao.

3. The said maintenance proceedings were contested by the husband Laxmanrao and the trial Court was conducted before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 5th Court, Nagpur, vide, Criminal Case No. 29/78. The learned Magistrate noted the pleadings of both the parties and recorded the evidence adduced by them and on hearing their Counsel, came to the conclusion that Kamlabai was the legally wedded wife of Laxmanrao; that she is unable to maintain herself; that she has no source of income and that she and her minor daughter Geetabai are entitled to maintenance as claimed. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 21-11-1979 granted Rs. 150/- per month as maintenance to wife Kamlabai and Rs. 50/- per month as maintenance to the minor daughter Geetabai.

4. Laxmanrao-the husband, felt aggrieved by the said order of maintenance as his contention was that Kamlabai is not at all legally wedded wife. He contended that he had married one Muktabai and had never divorced her; that Kamlabai was expressing her love and affection for Laxmanrao, but they were never married. His further contention was that Geetabai is not his legitimate daughter. The husband Laxmanrao's criminal revision was registered as Criminal Revision No. 15/80 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge at Nagpur. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that even though Kamlabai has married Laxmanrao by Pat., Kamlabai has not been able to establish that the earlier wife of Laxmanrao viz. Muktabai was divorced. The Sessions Judge, therefore, held that Kamlabai's marriage with Laxmanrao was during the subsistence of the first marriage and, therefore, illegal. He, however, concluded from the material which was already on record that the finding of the trial Court that Geetabai was the daughter born out of the wedlock of Laxmanrao and Kamlabai was correct. However, in view of the illegality of the said marriage, the minor child Geetabai was the illegitimate daughter of Laxmanrao. Lastly the Sessions Judge held, Kamlabai not being the legally wedded wife, was not entitled to claim maintenance while under the provisions of section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, the illegimate child is entitled to claim maintenance and accordingly granted maintenance of Rs. 50/- per month to Geetabai original applicant No. 2.

5. Kamlabai the original applicant No. 1 felt aggrieved by this order of the Sessions Judge and has preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 276 of 1980 inter alia contending that the findings of the trial Court were just and proper and needed to interference before the revisional Court of the Sessions Judge. She, therefore, contended that she was entitled to the original grant of maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month for herself also.

6. The husband Laxmanrao felt aggrieved by the revisional order of grant of maintenance to Geetabai on the ground that sh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document