The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of S.125 of the Code in cases of null and void marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the maintainability of revision applications under S.397(3) of the Code.

1. The appellant No.1 Bakulabai filed an application under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) before the Judicial Magistrate, Degloor, alleging that she was lawfully married to the respondent No.1 Ganga Ram and that the appellant No. 2 Maroti was born out of this wedlock. She claimed maintenance both for herself and for her son. Ganga Ram denied the marriage as well as the paternity of the appellant No. 2. He also averred that he was already married twice before the wedding pleaded by Bakulabai and that both his wives were living.

2. The Judicial Magistrate accepted Bakulabai's case and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month in her favour and additional Rs. 50/-per month for the minor boy.

3. Ganga Ram moved the Sessions Judge is revision. Bakulabai also filed a revision application for enhancement of the rate of maintenance. The two applications were registered respectively at Criminal Revision No. 83 of 1984 and Criminal Revision No. 110 of 1984, and were heard together. The Sessions judge accepted the defence case, reversed the findings of the Judicial Magistrate and dismissed the application for maintenance. Revision case No. 83 of 1984 was thus allowed and the wife's application was dismissed. Bakulabai challenged the order before the Bombay High Court by a revision application. By the impugned judgment the High Court rejected the same holding that since it was the second revision application by the wife it was not maintainable being barred by the provisions of S.397 (3) of the Cods. The Court further proceeded to examine the merits of the case and concurred with the view of the Sessions Judge. The appellants have now come to this Court by special leave.

4. On the maintainability of the revision application before it, the High Court took an erroneous view. The provisions of sub-s. (3) of S.397, relied upon, are in the following terms:

"(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no farmer application by the same persons shall be entertained by the other of them".

The main judgment of the Judicial Magistrate upholding the appellants claim for maintenance was in her favour and there was no question of her challenging the same. Her challenge before the Sessions Judge was confined to the part of the order assessing the amount of maintenance, and this issue could not have been raised again by her. Subject to this limitation she was, certainly entitled to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The decision on the merits of her claim went against her for the first time before the Session Judge, and this was the subject matter of her revision before the High Court. She could not, therefore, be said to be making a second attempt when she challenged this order before the High Court. The fact that she had moved before the Sessions Judge against the quantum of maintenance could not be used against her in respect of her right of revision against the Session Judge's order. Accordingly the decision of the High Court on this question is set aside and it is held thai the revision petition of the appellant before the High Court, except the prayer for enhancing the amount was maintainable.

5. Now, coming to the other aspect, the Judicial Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence led on behalf of the parties accepted the appellants' case. He held that Bakulabai and Ganga Ram had lived together in the same house as husband and wife for a considerable period, and the boy Maroti was born of this union. On the question as to whether Ganga Ram was already married and his wife or wives were Hying on the date the marriage with the appellant Bakulabai is alleged, the Magistrate did not record a categorical finding. According to the case of Ganga Ram, he was first married with Rajabai, and again with Kusumbai in 1969. It was, therefore, argued on his behalf that as he had two living spou