IMPORTANT POINT
The legal principle established is that maintenance can be claimed by children regardless of the marital status of the parents, while a spouse's entitlement to maintenance is contingent upon the validity of the marriage.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice on Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3, they have chosen not to appear before this Court.

2. This revision application has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 29.06.2016 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in maintenance case being Miscellaneous Case No. 10 of 2010 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/-per month and Rs. 2,000/-per month to Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 respectively from the date of filing of the application i.e. 10.02.2010.

3. It appears from the pleadings available on the record that the Opposite Party No. 2 filed the maintenance case claiming that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 3 is the daughter born out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the Opposite Party No. 2 which took place in the year 1980. It is stated that the petitioner had got his first wife with whom he had no issue but after marriage with the Opposite Party No. 2, children were born to the first wife whereafter the behaviour of the petitioner changed towards Opposite Party No. 2 and he started treating the Opposite Party No. 2 with cruelty. The Opposite Party No. 2 lodged a criminal case being Barun P.S. Case No. 235 of 2009 and another case being Barun P.S. Case No. 312 of 2009 registered for the offences alleged under Sections 498A and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 claimed that they were unable to maintain themselves whereas the present petitioner is a rich man having a rice mill and shop and he earns rent from his properties.

4. In the court of learned Principal Judge, the present petitioner appeared and filed his show cause. He claimed that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable as the marriage between Opposite Party No. 2 and the petitioner was not a legal and valid marriage and it was not solemnised according to Hindu rites and customs. The petitioner claimed that he was married to one Prabhawati Devi and has been blessed with six sons from the wedlock. He contested the case of the Opposite Party No. 2 as a totally false case and submitted that his eldest son is of 25 years.

5. The parties adduced their respective evidences in the Family Court, the wife (Opposite Party No. 2) adduced six witnesses whereas the husband (the petitioner) examined five witnesses in support of their respective cases.

6. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court having examined the evidences brought on the record came to a conclusion that the applicant-Opposite Party No. 2 is residing in the house of Opposite Party-petitioner as his wife and the Opposite Party No. 3 (applicant no. 2 in the court below) is daughter of Opposite Party No. 2 and both the applicants-Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 are unable to maintain themselves.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds:

(i) The specific plea of the present petitioner that the Opposite Party No. 2 is not his wife has not at all been considered by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad. During pendency of the revision application before this Court, the petitioner has obtained a decree in Matrimonial Case No. 9 of 2011 wherein it has been declared by the competent court that the Opposite Party No. 2, Kalawati Devi is not his legally wedded wife, however, the learned court has held that the petitioner is unable to prove that Opposite Party No. 3 is not his daughter.

(ii) The Opposite Party No. 2 challenged the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court in Matrimonial Case No. 9 of 2011 by filing Miscellaneous Appeal being M.A. No. 1049 of 2018 which has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 25.09.2023.

8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. By efflux of time