ORDER :

1. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under section 19(4) of Family Court Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4-8-2018, passed in M.Cr.C. No. 13/2016, by learned Principal Judge, Mandsaur whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that applicant/wife has failed to prove that she being the legal wife of the respondent/husband is liable to receive the maintenance.

2. The fact in brief are that the petitioner filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance and pleaded that three years ago the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent according to Hindu rites and rituals. Thereafter the respondent and his family members started harassing her for not fulfilling their demand of dowry also tortured by aborting her issue twice. The respondent had illicit relation with one Seema and on 8-3-2016, the respondent along with Seema have assaulted the applicant. The respondent being Government Teacher, is earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. He also has agricultural land measuring two Beegha from which also he earns income. He also has his own house and shops at Mahidpur Road and from the rent of shops, he earns Rs. 6,000/- per month. Therefore, in total, the respondent is earning Rs. 38,000/- per month. The applicant is only a homemaker and is an unemployed person, therefore, she has filed application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance which has been dismissed by the Family Court, therefore, this revision has been filed by the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer made by the applicant and submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that since the petitioner is already married to another person, she cannot claim maintenance from person with whom she lived for some time. Hence prayed for rejection of this revision petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. From the record it is evident that learned Additional Session Judge has passed this order on the ground that since the petitioner is not a legally wedded wife of the respondent, she is not entitled for the claim of maintenance. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the leave granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh vs. Naresh Pal , (1999) 8 SCC 447 , however, in the said judgment the wife has got divorced from her earlier husband whereas, in the present case, the wife has not got divorced from her earlier husband and she has entered into second marriage, hence, the petitioner can’t any claim parity with the case of Santosh supra.

6. On this aspect in the case of Bhagwandas S/o Tilakdhari Shah vs. Panpati W/o Bhagwandas Shah , 2023 (2) Law Suit (MP) 223 this High Court has recently having discussed on concerning legal provisions and also the laws laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, adumbrated in para-19 of the judgment as under:

“Additionally, a “wife” under section 125 Cr.P.C. would include a woman who has been divorced by a husband or who has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. As discussed above, even if a woman does not have the legal status of a wife, she is brought within the inclusive definition of “wife” in order to maintain consistency with the object of the statutory provision. However, a second wife whose marriage is void on account of survival of the first marriage would not be a legally wedded wife, and therefore would not be entitled to maintenance under this provision In the case of Vimala (K) vs. Veeraswamy (K), (1991) 2 SCC 375, the Supreme Court held as fol