O R D E R

The Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated

08.12.2022 in Crl.A.No.68 of 2018 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court, Tenkasi, made against the order in M.C.No.20 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi.

2.The petitioner/husband filed the revision petition challenging the maintenance order granted in favour of the respondents herein. The respondent herein is the wife. The respondent/wife filed a petition in M.C.No.20 of 2008 before the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, stating that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on 23.10.1988. After 15 years from the date of marriage, the petitioner is said to have caused cruelty to the respondent. Unable to bear the cruelty, the respondent/wife left the matrimonial home and also made a complaint before the jurisdictional police station, wherein, the petitioner/husband undertook to pay maintenance to the respondent/wife. Even after that he did not pay any maintenance amount. Therefore, the respondent/wife filed a petition claiming maintenance.

3.In the maintenance petition, the respondent/wife stated that the petitioner/husband after retirement, received pension and also obtained retirement benefits. From the retirement benefits, he earned more than Rs.25,000/- as interest. Therefore, the respondent/wife sought for a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance.

4.The Petitioner/husband filed counter denying all the allegations made in the petition. He also denied the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and claimed that the marriage was invalid. He specifically took a stand that the respondent married him without valid legal divorce and hence, she is not entitled to get maintenance.

5.To deny the claim of maintenance, the petitioner/husband examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P1 to P.7. The respondent/wife examined herself as R.W.1 and marked Ex.R1 and R2 to claim maintenance.

6.The trial Court, considering the above aspects, dismissed the application on the ground that the relationship was not proved and hence, she is not entitled to get maintenance. Challenging the same, the respondent/wife has filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.68 of 2018 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTC), Tenkasi and the same was allowed. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner/husband filed the present criminal revision before this Court.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the finding of the learned trial judge and specifically submitted that the respondent/wife is not entitled to get maintenance for the reason that she married him without obtaining divorce from her erstwhile husband. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relayed on the judgement of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Crl.RC.No.1440 of 2022 and the another judgement in Crl.RC.No.726 of 2017. The learned counsel further relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pyla Mutyalamma v. Pyla Suri Demudu, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 189. On the basis of that, the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submitted that the respondent/wife is not entitled for maintenance and the same was not properly considered by the learner District Judge. Hence, he prays to allow the revision.

8.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submitted that the judgement relayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present case. In the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Badshah-Vs-Urmila Badshah Godse and another, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 188, the entire issue was discussed and held that when the marriage was admitted and if both were living as husband and wife, she is entitled for maintenance in spite of the earlier marriage was not legally dissolved.

9.This Court considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

10. The question arises in this case is that “whether the petitioner is en