Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.

1. Heard Sri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri R.D. Daubolia, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. In this case counter and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties.

3. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.5.2015 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lalitpur in Case No. 894 of 2013 (Smt. Janki Vs. Santosh) under section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lalitpur partly allowed the application of maintenance of opposite party no. 2 and directed to the revisionist to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party No. 2.

4. The only point submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist is that opposite party no. 2 is not legally wedded wife of the revisionist. Further contended that his first wife Smt. Guddi, daughter of Panna Lal, is living with the revisionist and the marriage of revisionist with the first wife Smt. Guddi had not been annulled by decree of divorce, hence the order passed passed by the court below is absolutely unjust, illegal and is liable to be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that revisionist and the opposite party no. 2 are legally wedded husband and wife. Further, revisionist has deserted his wife due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry, on account of which opposite party no. 2 filed a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from her husband and learned court below awarded Rs. 2,000/- per month as a maintenance allowance which is proper and legal order and further, argued that in reply of the petition filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. the revisionist himself has admitted his legally wedded wife. In addition to the above argument, learned counsel has submitted that even if the first wife of the revisionist is still alive even then opposite party no. 2 is entitled for the maintenance. So, neither there is any infirmity nor perversity in the impugned judgement, it lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

6. On the basis of the argument raised by both the parties, the crux of the matter in the revision is whether opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of revisionist or not.

7. I have perused the impugned judgement and record annexed with the affidavit in this revision.

8. Perusal of the impugned judgement reveals that the court below has framed five points for determination in this case in which the first point of determination is whether applicant (opposite party no. 2) is legally wedded wife of revisionist? On the basis of the admission in para-1 of objection 14-Ka, the court below comes to the conclusion that opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of revisionist. In addition to it the statement of OPW 2 Devendra Singh has been recorded, in which he stated that a complaint case No. 1130 of 2005 Santosh Singh Vs. Shyamlal and others) has been filed under section section 452, 504, 506 IPC along with statement of opposite party no. 2 has also been considered on the basis of findings with regard to the legally wedded wife found to be the admission of the opposite party no. 2 in the objection as stated above.

9. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by both the parties, I would like to refer the legal preposition as held in 2000 SCC (Crl.) 748 Khemchand Om Prkash Sharma Vs. State of Gujarat and another. In this case Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the marriage of the first wife had not been annulled by decree of divorce or otherwise and the first wife was alive then second wife is not entitled to get maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned lower court in his judgement referred the above relying to distinguish it on the fact that the claim for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. had not been made as a second wife of the revisionist (opposite party). Undoubtedly, the perusal of the application and the objection filed ag