ORDER

With the consent of the parties heard finally.

1. This order shall govern the disposal of these criminal revisions as they are arisen out of same order dated 13.05.2017 passed in Miscellaneous Judicial Case (Criminal) No. 230/2015 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District-Rajgarh. Hence, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

2 . These criminal revisions have been filed by the petitioners under Section 19(4) of Family Court Act, 1984 read with Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.05.2017, passed in MJC(Cri) No.230/2015, by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, District-Rajgarh (Biaora) 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. Whereas the maintenance of Rs.4,000/- was awarded to petitioner No. 2/Chanchal per month from the date of filing of application. Further, the wife-Durga Bai and daughter-Chanchal will be addressed as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 while husband-Keval Singh will be addressed as respondent.

3 . The Criminal Revision No. 754/2017 has been filed by Durga Bai/petitioner No. 1 for awarding the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- for her and enhancing the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- from Rs.4,000/- to petitioner No. 2, while the Criminal Revision No. 726/2017 has been filed by respondent/Keval Singh to set aside the order of maintenance in favour of his daughter/petitioner No.2. It is also worth mentioning that in Criminal Revision No. 754/2017, no one appeared on behalf of respondent/Keval Singh today, hence, revision petition No. 754/2017 is decided in non-appearance of respondent/Keval Singh.

4. The facts in brief are that, the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent was solemnized as per Hindu Rituals in the year 2009. After conjugal relation between both, baby Chanchal was born from their wedlock. This marriage was second marriage for both petitioner No.1/Durga Bai and respondent/Keval Singh. Previously, marriage was solemnized between Durga Bai and Bhagwan Singh resident of Village Lalpuria, but Bhagwan Singh consummated second marriage and abandoned Durgabai. As per custom and rituals of society, Bhagwan Singh gave divorce. After getting divorce from Bhagwan Singh, the petitioner No. 1/Durgabai did second marriage with Keval Singh/respondent. Thereafter, the parents of respondent/Keval Singh taunted Durgabai with regard to demand of dowry and Keval Singh himself used to beat her after getting liquor. Owing to cruel treatment by respondent, petitioner was compelled to leave the house and from April, 2015, she was residing in her brother's house in Rajgarh. The petitioner No. 1 is only a homemaker and is an unemployed lady, 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.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial Court has not considered all aspects of the case and not appreciated the evidence available on record. The petitioner No. 1 is an uneducated lady. From April 2015, she was residing at her brother's house in Rajgarh alongwith her 4 years old child/petitioner No. 2. He also submits that the petitioner No. 1 is liable to get maintenance from respondent, being a wife and as she is compelled by respondent to live separately because of mental and physical cruelty. The respondent is owner of transport vehicle and also having income from agriculture. It is further expostulated that since petitioner No. 1 has obtained divorce from her earlier husband as per norms of society, she cannot be treated as illegitimate wife of respondent/Keval Singh. It is contended that at the time of marriage between Durgabai and Bhagwan Singh (previous husband), Durgabai was minor. Hence, her marriage was void