Point of Law: Second marriage - Maintenance - Liability of - If wife makes a plea that she was not informed about previous marriage of her husband, that shall be of no avail - Purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125, such a woman is to be treated as legally wedded wife - Finding of learned Family Court that respondent has entitlement in grant of maintenance cannot be said to be erroneous in any respect.

ORDER :

Heard.

1. This criminal revision petition has been brought against the order dated 17.3.2020 passed in M.J.C. No. 154 of 2018, granting monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the impugned order is erroneous and illegal. The respondent has failed to prove that she was legally wedded wife of this applicant. Learned Family Court has erroneously held that although the respondent is not a legally wedded wife of the applicant even then, she was entitled for maintenance. It was clear admission of the respondent in her cross-examination, that she was married to one Bisahu Ram Sahu and she has a son and daughter from that marriage. She also admitted that she has not obtained any divorce from Bisahu Ram Sahu from any Court of law. Another circumstance that was present was that the applicant was already married to one Devki Bai regarding which, the respondent had made admissions in her cross-examination. Therefore, the applicant and the respondent both were married and their spouses were living, hence, the relation between them could not be termed as a valid marriage.

3. Placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and Another, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 188, it is submitted that it is not a case in which the respondent was ignorant about previous marriage of the applicant, therefore, she cannot be deemed as legally wedded wife of the applicant. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another, reported in (1998) 1 SCC 530, in which it has been held that a woman marrying a man who is already married and his wife is living, is not entitled under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., as such marriage is void ab initio. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that it has been similarly held in the cases of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat and Others, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 636 and D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 469, that for the purpose of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. the wife must be legally wedded wife. It is further submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable, therefore, the revision petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the submissions so made and submits, that the respondent has proved her case to show her entitlement for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. After the dispute arose between the applicant and the respondent, a compromise had taken place between them. Copy of that compromise deed Ex.P/7-C has been produced in the evidence, which shows that the applicant admitted that the respondent is his wife. The applicant has made admissions in his cross-examination that name of the respondent is mentioned in the ration-card Ex.P/1-C, in the post-office saving account Ex.P/2-C, in the Dena Bank Saving Account Ex.P/3-C and in the Aadhar Card Ex.P/4-C, which shows the applicant as her husband. It is also submitted that in the case of Smt. Motim Bai Borkar vs. Arjun Singh Borkar, reported in 2017(2) C.G.L.J.330, it was held by this Court that the respondent husband having married the lady lived together as husband and wife and cohabited with her, now cannot be permitted to turn around and say that the petitioner is not his legally wedded wife. This ratio has been laid down in the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and Another (supra), and also followed in the judgment of this High Court in the case of Smt. Teras Dongare vs. Avinash Dongare in CRR No. 346 of 2019 decided on 10.2.2021, therefore, on the basis of this ratio of law, the respondent has the entitlement for grant of maintenance. Hence, the petition is without any substance which may be dismissed.

5. In reply, it is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the case-laws cited by the respondent side