ORDER :

The Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed in M.C.No.30 of 2016, dated 26.09.2017 on the file of the Family Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.

2. The respondent by invoking Section 125 of Cr.P.C, has filed the case in M.C.No.3 of 2016 before the Family Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District, claiming maintenance at Rs.50,000/- per month. The revision petitioner has filed counter statement, disputing the marriage alleged by the respondent and the liability to pay the maintenance. The learned Judge, Family Court, upon considering the evidence and on hearing the arguments of both sides, has passed the impugned order on 26.09.2017, directing the revision petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband has come forward with the present revision.

3. Whether the impugned order passed in M.C.No.30 of 2016, dated 26.09.2017 on the file of the Family Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District is liable to be set aside ? is the point of consideration.

4. The case of the respondent/wife is that the marriage between herself and the petitioner was solemnized on 23.05.2010 at Sankarankovil, that prior to the marriage, the respondent was a divorcee, having a female child and the petitioner was a widower, having a male child, that both of them after knowing the family background of each other, had entered into re-marriage and that the respondent and the petitioner were living together along with their children.

5. It is the further case of the respondent that the petitioner subsequently demanded dowry and ill-treated the respondent and her daughter, that the petitioner forced the respondent to abort her pregnancy, that the petitioner had also snatched the jewels of the respondent and treated as servant and that since the petitioner had threatened the respondent that he would kill her and her child, if she refused to leave the house of the petitioner, the petitioner was forced to leave the matrimonial house on 13.06.2010.

6. It is the further case of the respondent that the respondent and her female child are presently living in her parent's house at Natchiarpatti, that the complaints to the Police against the petitioner were of no avail, that the respondent is not having any income to look after herself and her female child and that therefore, she was constrained to file the above maintenance claim.

7. As already pointed out, the petitioner has filed the counter statement, disputing the facts that the marriage between him and the respondent was solemnized on 23.05.2010 and that they were living together as husband and wife. The petitioner has also denied the dowry harassment and ill-treatment alleged by the respondent.

8. The respondent in her claim petition has specifically stated that she was married to one Rajaram of Chettiappatti, Dindigul, that due to their wedlock, a female child by name Sivasankari was born to them, that since misunderstanding arose between them, divorce petition in HMOP.No.118 of 2019 was filed before the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur and that divorce has already been granted by the Court on 03.11.2009. The petitioner in his counter statement has stated that he was not aware of the earlier marriage and consequent divorce alleged by the respondent.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent has not produced any evidence to show that she was divorced from her first husband. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is not the case of the petitioner that though the marriage was solemnized between himself and the respondent, the said marriage is not valid because of the subsistence of the first marriage of the respondent. Since the petitioner has specifically disputed the marriage alleged to have been taken place between himself and the respondent, the present contention of the petitioner that the respondent has not proved that she was divorced from her first h