ORDER

1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under section 19(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being crestfallen by the order dated 7.1.2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.J.C. No. 813/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has awarded the maintenance of Rs.27,000/- in favour of respondent/Sarika from the date of order i.e. 7.1.2020.

2. The facts in brief are that the marriage was solemnized between petitioner and respondent on 13.7.2013. Before this marriage, the respondent No. 1 had been married with one Manish Gupta at Khargone. Manish Gupta was a government servant. When respondent No. 1 got pregnant and told her husband Manish Gupta, he disclosed that he has already married, his wife name is Naveena Sutar, so the marriage between them is illicit. The respondent No. 1 gave birth a son namely Prakhar/respondent No. 2. Her husband Manish Gupta abandoned her saying that “nothing is remained to be continued between us, I took marriage with her with my interest”. Meanwhile, brother of the respondent No. 1, uploaded information regarding respondent No. 1/wife and respondent No. 2/Son on internet.

3. On that information, the petitioner and his family contacted respondent No. 1 and informed her that the petitioner’s wife has expired and now, he has two unmarried daughters, he has one house, in which one shop is situated, also a shop of jewellery in Sarafa “Krishnafirm”, Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- earning is there from this shop. An apartment was also given on rent, from all sources, petitioner is earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month. The petitioner and his family was informed about marriage of respondent No. 1/wife that respondent No. 1/wife was married with one Manish Gupta, but as Manish Gupta was already married, the marriage was null and void, hence, divorce decree could not be taken and respondent No. 1/wife was residing at home for last 8 years. The condition was put before the petitioner that he has to give his name as father to the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner and respondent No. 1 got married with each other on 13.7.2013. The respondent No. 1 started residing with petitioner alongwith petitioner’s two daughters in Jaipur. The petitioner said to her, she has no need for any maintenance, so that, she could not attend the hearing of the case for recording her statement which was filed by her against Manish Gupta. The petitioner gave his name to respondent No. 2.

4. After 2-3 years of their marriage, two daughters of the petitioner, his brother and sister-in-law started cruelty with respondent No. 1 and demanded dowry and also did some blackmagic activities. In the year 2016, marriage was finalized of one daughter of the petitioner namely Sheep, the petitioner demanded money from respondent No. 1/Wife. Petitioner got the abortion done of respondent N. 1 twice in the year 2016. The respondent No. 1 filed a report at Mahila Thana, Indore against him. It is stated that the respondent is not capable to maintain herself and her son, the petitioner is a capable man but till date he did not maintain or pay expenses of respondents, therefore, the respondent has filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance which has been allowed by awarding the maintenance of Rs.27,000/- to the respondent No.1 and rejected the application filed on behalf of respondent No. 2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is clearly mentioned in the impugned order as admitted fact that the respondent was married with one Manish Gupta in the year 2005 and from the wedlock, she born a child namely Prakhar. She also admitted that she had not obtained divorce decree from her earlier husband Manish Gupta because he has already been married due to which, marriage of respondent No. 1 with Manish Gupta was said to be null and void. These facts establish that the respondent No. 1 has not taken divorce of her first marriage. It is further submitted by lea