A valid marriage is crucial for maintenance claims; suppression of previous marriage impacts entitlement, underpinning the obligation to support under the law.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is a petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and under Section 19(4) of FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984 against the order of maintenance dated 30.07.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in connection with Case No. Misc. 370 of 2018 directing the revision-petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) per month to the opposite party for the purpose of maintaining herself within 10th day of every English Calendar month w.e.f. 01.08.2019.

2. Heard Mr. A Basak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Mr. Basak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein submits that his client has no relationship with the respondent herein and the respondent is only exploiting him for extracting money. The petitioner-counsel further contended that the petitioner is already a married person and the respondent is a widow with children and both the petitioner and the respondent never married. The petitioner is already having a wife and under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, this lady, the respondent herein claiming herself to be the wife of the petitioner herein cannot be accepted under the definition of a wife. Even if there is any marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, the said marriage becomes a void marriage, thus, the question of payment of any maintenance does not arise.

4. In support of his argument, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon Para-10 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal reported in (2010) 10 SCC 469, and the same is reproduced herein under:-

'It may be noted that Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides for giving maintenance to the wife and some other relatives. The word 'wife' has been defined in Explanation (b) to Section 125 (1) of the Cr.P.C. as follows:

'Wife includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.'

5. Petitioner-counsel has further relied upon para-10 of the Judgment of the Patna High Court in Baby Devi and ors. v. Arun Kumar Aman alias Rameshwar Rahi alias Rameshwar Prasad Mandal alias Durga reported in 1999 CRI. L.J. 4510 and the same is reproduced hereunder:-

'10. On the question of quantum of maintenance, Section 125 says that a person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife or children can be called upon to pay maintenance to them. All the witnesses on both the sides have stated that the opposite party is engaged in a good job in the railway workshop at Jamalpur, All the AWS have stated that he was then drawing salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Therefore, the opposite party has surely sufficient means to maintain the petitioners. As has been found hereinabove, he has failed to maintain the petitioners. In view of the findings hereinabove that petitioner No. 1 is the second wife of the opposite party while the first one is still alive, I hereby declare for the purpose of the present application that petitioner No. 1 is not entitled to maintenance within the meaning of Section 125 of the Act. Section 125 (1)(b) lays down that the father is bound to maintain his legitimate or illegitimate minor children whether married or not and unable to maintain themselves. It is undoubtedly clear that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are unable to maintain themselves. As to their age, PW 1 stated in his deposition recorded on 22-2-92 that '.....................................' A Therefore, petitioner No. 2 has attained majority on com