B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter, referred to as 'Code of Criminal Procedure ', for short), has been filed by the husband assailing the judgment and Order dated 22.07.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai, West Tripura, in Cr.(Rev) No. 3 of 2009, whereby the Revisional Court has affirmed the judgment and Order dated 25.05.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khowai, West Tripura, in Misc. Case No. 18 of 2007, under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure In other words, both the Courts below have allowed maintenance allowance of Rs.2,500/- to the Respondents herein. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments, the husband has preferred this application.

2. Heard Sri S. Lodh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Sri P. Roy Barman, learned Counsel for the Respondent. I have also gone through the impugned judgments.

3. The Respondents herein filed an application under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court of learned SDJM, Khowai, in the year 2007, contending that the marriage of Respondent No. 1 with the Petitioner herein was solemnized on 25.11.1996 as per Hindu rites in presence of witnesses and out of their wedlock the Respondent No. 1 was blessed with a child(R-2). It was also pleaded in the said application that after her marriage the Petitioner has married another woman Smt. Mira Nama Das and has started living with the second wife. With this allegation and other averments regarding her incapacity to maintain herself and the minor child, a sum of Rs.3,000/- was prayed as maintenance allowance. The aforesaid prayer of maintenance allowance was resisted by the husband by filing written statement. In the said written statement, the Respondent denied his marriage with the Applicant and on the other hand, it was asserted that Smt. Mira Nama Das was only the legally wedded wife of the Petitioner.

4. Both the sides adduced oral evidences. However, as per the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, neither party could prove to his satisfaction about their respective marriages. In other words, neither the husband could establish his marriage with Smt. Mira Nama Das nor the Respondent No. 1 could prove that she was the legally married wife of the Petitioner. Despite that, evidences were enough to take a view that the Petitioner was having conjugal relation with the Appellant and accordingly maintenance allowance of Rs.2,500/- was granted for herself and her son. The judgment of the learned SDJM, Khowai, was challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the revision application, leading to the filing of the present criminal application.

5. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ganesh Narayan Hegde Vs S Bangarappa and Ors. reported in (1995) 4 SCC 41, Sri Lodh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that if the revisional Court do not exercise its revisional powers effectively, there is no bar to entertain the application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure According to Sri Lodh, the Petitioner had filed 2 (two) documents in the trial Court to show that the husband was already a married person and as such, the Applicant/Respondent No. 1 was not entitled to any maintenance, even if, it is found that that she had any kind of relation with the Petitioner. I will refer to those documents at a later stage.

6. On the other hand, Sri Roy Barman, learned Counsel for the Respondents also cited the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Priti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand, (AIR 2010 SC 3363); with respect to the contours of Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to certain observations made in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal, AIR 2008 SC 251; and the said observations may