The court emphasized the broad and inclusive interpretation of the term 'wife' for the purpose of maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, considering the evidence of marriage and the need for social justice and empowerment of the destitute.

JUDGMENT :

S. Talapatra, J.

1. By means of this revision, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the judgment and order dated 17.06.2019 delivered in Misc. Case No.462 of 2015 by the Additional Judge, Family Court, West Tripura Agartala. By the said judgment and order dated 17.06.2019, the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance at Rs. 4000/- per month to the respondent, the petitioner in the original proceeding under Section 125 of the CrPC from 01.07.2019 until further order for the OP has his previous wife and children and he has also to maintain them. Such maintenance has been directed to be paid within 10th day of every calendar month by money order on deducting the cost of money order from the said amount of maintenance. Further, it is undisputed that in the proceeding being Misc. Case No.462 of 2016, the Judge, Family Court, Agartala had directed the petitioner herein to pay of a sum of Rs. 12000/- per month. The said proceeding was initiated as the petitioner herein had stopped maintaining the respondent from 2013, but the petitioner (the opposite party in the proceeding before the Family Court) has claimed that the respondent is not his wife. His legally married wife is one Sabitri Das whom he married as per Hindu Rites and Customs in 1993. From the said wedlock, the petitioner has two daughters. Further, the petitioner has asserted that he has been paying maintenance to his wife, Sabitri Das since 2001. Later on, the Family Court had modified the quantum of allowance on two occasions. Now the petitioner is paying Rs. 2000 to his wife, Sabitri Das and two daughters.

2. The crux of the challenge in this petition is that marriage of a woman with a man while his spouse is alive and their marital relation has not come to an end, the said marriage is a complete nullity in the eye of law. Thus, any court invoking its jurisdiction under section 125 of the CrPC cannot pass two different maintenance orders against the person considering two women as his spouse. Thus, it has been contended that the respondent is not entitled to maintenance. As the Family Court has directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance to the respondent at Rs. 4000/- per month by the order dated 17.06.2019, the petitioner has challenged that order.

3. Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has, in his usual fairness, drawn the notice of this court to the orders directing payment of maintenance in favour of the respondent. By the judgment and order dated 23.11.2002 delivered in Misc. 173 of 2001 (Annexure-A to this revision petition) the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Agartala, West Tripura directed the petitioner to pay Sabitri Das Rs. 1000 per month as maintenance allowance. It has been clearly observed by the judgment and order dated 23.11.2002 that Rs. 1000/- per month as the maintenance allowance has been distinctly granted to Smt. Sabitri Das and further sum of Rs. 500/- each as the maintenance allowance to Smt. Sunanda Das and to Smt. Sikha Das as daughters of the petitioner, from the marriage with Sabitri das. Thus the total sum of maintenance was aggregated to Rs. 2000 was directed to be paid to Smt. Sabitri Das and two daughters, Sunanda Das and Sikha Das. Further, by the order dated 16.06.2011 passed in the proceeding initiated under section 127 of the CrPC for enhancement of the maintenance from Rs. 2000 to Rs. 6000 per month being Misc. Case No. 179 of 2008, the composite maintenance allowance had been enhanced to Rs. 4500/- per month from Rs. 2000/- per month. The said order dated 16.06.2011 was passed by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura.

4. The petitioner herein had also initiated a proceeding under section 127 of the CrPC in the court of the Judge Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura being Misc. 274 of 2014 titled as Bibhuti Ranjan Das Vs. Sabitri Das. By the order dated 12.08.2015 as passed in the said proceeding, the plea raised by the petitioner herein has been accepted by