1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.4.2011 passed by Family Court, Indore in case No. 345/10 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for grant of interim maintenance was allowed in part and Rs. 1,500/- per month was awarded towards maintenance of the petitioner and her daughter @ Rs. 750/- each, the present petition has been filed.

2. Short facts of the case are that respondent filed a petition under section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 with a prayer that marriage of the respondent with the petitioner which was solemnized on 16.6.2002 be declared as void. In the said petition an application was filed by the petitioner under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of interim maintenance alleging that out of wedlock which took place on 16.6.2002 petitioner delivered a baby Nitya on 23.2.2003. It was alleged that respondent has left the petitioner w.e.f. 12.2.2010. It was further alleged that respondent is in job and is earning Rs. 17,000/- per month, therefore application be allowed and maintenance be awarded. The application was not replied by the respondent, however was contested. After hearing the parties learned Court below allowed the application in part and awarded Rs. 750/- for the petitioner and Rs. 750/- for her daughter, against which the present petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued at length and submits that amount awarded is grossly inadequate which deserves to be enhanced. Learned counsel submits that it was specifically alleged before the learned Court below that respondent is earning Rs. 17,000/- per month which was not rebutted in writing by submitting the reply and counter affidavit but inspite of that learned Court below committed error in awarding a meager sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month in which it is practically not possible for the petitioner to exist in such a small amount. It is submitted that petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and amount be enhanced.

4. Learned counsel for respondent submits that alleged marriage which was solemnized on 16.6.2002 itself is void as prior to the marriage with the respondent the petitioner was married on 20.9.95 with one Subhash and the petitioner also gave birth to a son namely Neeloy on 10.12.96. It is submitted that during subsistence of first marriage, the marriage was solemnized on 16.6.2002 of which respondent was having no knowledge. It is submitted that baby Nitya is also not the daughter of the respondent as she born before completion of period of 9 months after the marriage. Learned counsel submits that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that respondent is earning Rs. 17,000/- per month. It is submitted that respondent is jobless, however it is admitted that respondent is having degree of M.A. in English Literature and is also prosecuting the course of B.Ed. Learned counsel submits that since marriage itself is nullity, therefore, no order for grant of maintenance could have been passed. Reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Smt. Yamunabai v. Anantrao Shivaram Adhav. AIR 1988 SC 644 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that word “wife” means a legally wedded wife and marriage of woman with man having living spouse is nullity and she is not entitled for maintenance. It is submitted that petition be dismissed.

5. Facing to it, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was born on 19.4.79. The alleged date of first marriage is dated 20.9.95, at that time the petitioner was below the age of 15 years. Respondent knows the petitioner from her childhood. Learned counsel submits that infact the petitioner was kidnapped. It is submitted that petitioner and respondent are originally resident of Mandsaur and are residing in close vicinity. It is submitted that right from the beginning the fact that petitioner was kidnapped and married was in the knowledge of respondent. It is submitted that after the marriage with the respondent, divorce petition was filed by the petitioner 29