A woman cannot claim maintenance from a second husband if she is still married to her first husband, as only legally wedded wives are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

With the consent of the parties heard finally.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 being aggrieved and disgruntled by the judgment dated 05.01.2023, passed in Criminal Revision No. 11/2021, by learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Barwah, District-Mandleshwar (M.P.) whereby the learned Court has set aside the order dated 06.09.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badwah District West Nimad passed in MJC R No. 400081/2016 and by allowing the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C awarded maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in favour of respondent from the date of application.

3. The facts of respondent's application in brief are that, the petitioner and respondent got married about 6-7 years ago and further, under influence of his elder brother and sister-in-law, the petitioner started mistreating the respondent and made no arrangement for her maintenance. Therefore, the respondent has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for maintenance which has been dismissed by the trial Court. Thereafter, revision has been filed before the Revisional Court, which was allowed in favour of respondent, hence, being aggrieved by the order of aforesaid order, this petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Revisional Court has not considered all the aspects of the case and not appreciated the evidence available on record. The petitioner has denied the factum of marriage solemnized between them. It was categorically stated that the respondent was married with one Dilip Chaturvedi and had three sons from that marriage. As per the Ration Card and Samagra ID of the respondent, her husband was Dilip Chaturvedi. It was clarified that the eldest son of the respondent had given a house on rent by the petitioner and due to dispute of payment of rent, a false case was filed. The income of Rs.50,000/- per month and Rs.10,00,000/- income from agriculture, was denied by the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner had retired and his pension was yet to be sanctioned.

5. It is further submitted that the respondent/wife herself admitted in her cross-examination that earlier she was married one Dilip Chaturvedi and out of that wedlock, three children were born and also stated that neither she has filed any case for divorce before any of the Courts against Dilip Chaturvedi nor Dilip Chaturvedi has taken any action against respondent in this regard. Hence, prays for setting aside the impugned judgment. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the law laid down in the case of Gindan and Ors. Vs. Barelal , [AIR 1976 MP 83] passed in F.A. No. 199/1974 decided on 05.12.1975.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer and submitted that looking to the income of the applicant, the Revisional Court has rightly awarded maintenance amount in favour of respondent. He has placed reliance in the case of Chanmuniya Vs. Chanmuniya Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SC 141 and in the case of Kamala and Ors. Vs. M.R. Mohan Kumar reported in AIR 2018 SC 5128 . Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the conundrum of the case is as to whether the findings of learned Revisional Court, reversing the order of rejecting maintenance by learned trial Court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is incorrect and suffering from infirmity and illegality.

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

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of Gindan (supra), it is condign to quote the following extracts of the judgment, herein below :-

"...............it was not disputed before us that appellant No. 1 was of about 10 years of age when she was married. That being so, it is no doubt true that she had not attained the ag