( 1 ) INVOKING the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/ husband has challenged the order dated 11- 12-2002 passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 39 of 2002, whereby the revision has been dismissed and the judgment and order dated 26-3-2002 passed by the learned J. M. F. C. in misc. Crl. Case No. 101 of 2001 granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month from the date of the application is confirmed.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the husband contended that the respondent/wife is the legally wedded wife of Chandrabhan raut (A. W. 2) and when the said marriage was still subsisting, the respondent/wife is not entitled to claim maintenance on the contention that she was- residing with the petitioner Raju as his wife and that he performed marriage with her about five years back prior to filing of the petition. He contended that the alleged marriage of respondents/wife is void and as such she is not entitled to claim maintenance. In support of these submissions he relied on the decision of this Court in Indu Nimba Pawar Vs. Sumanbai Kadu Pawar, 1996 (2) Mh. LJ. 817 : 1996 (4) ALL MR 153.

( 3 ) MR. Tathod, learned counsel, for the respondent/wife fully supports the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. He contended that the first husband of Baby, by name Chandrabhan raut, had given divorce to her and thereafter the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized in the temple of jholebaba. He contended that the evidence of mahadeo (P. W. 3) on record would indicate that he is the neighbour of the petitioner and the respondent/wife lives in his house as his wife. He contended that even Chandrabhan raut has also been examined and his evidence would reveal that he had given oral divorce to his wife Baby and the divorce-deed was written on a stamp paper. Thus, according to Mr. Tathod, the marriage of Baby with the petitioner/husband is perfectly legal and valid and if at all the petitioner husband wants that the said marriage should be declared as invalid, he can approach the Civil Court and get a declaration about the validity or otherwise of the marriage. He contended that strict proof is not required in the proceedings under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code for granting maintenance on the ground that the wife is the legally wedded wife. He, therefore contended that there is no merit in the present application which is liable to be dismissed.

( 4 ) THIS Court has given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties. In Indu vs. Sumanbai, 1996 (2) Mh. L. J. 817, cited supra, this Court has observed in para nos. 13, 14, 16 and 17 as under:"there is no provision in Hindu Marriage act enabling the parties to come to an agreement that the marriage should be dissolved out of Court. Therefore, the question whether the alleged agreement between the wife and the first husband about divorce is a valid one and whether the wifes marriage with the petitioner is a valid marriage are all questions which cannot be decided in a proceeding under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. It is a matter which had to be decided by the competent civil Court. In view of these admitted facts viz. That the wife has a first husband who is living and there is no decree of divorce through the Court under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, i feel that the question should be left open so that the parties can approach a competent civil Court and get a declaration whether the marriage is valid or void. Since prima facie that marriage appears to be void, I feel that the wife could not be entitled to get maintenance in this case, except however giving an opportunity to her to approach a civil Court and get a declaration that her marriage is still valid in law. It is also open to the husband to approach the civil Court and ask for a declaration that the marriage betw

Click Here to Read the rest of this document