( 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document