MEGHRAJ SAHU Vs. LATA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. 1. This criminal revision petition has been brought against the order dtd. 17/3/2020 passed in M.J.C. No. 154 of 2018, granting monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000.00 to the respondent.

(2.) It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the impugned order is erroneous and illegal. The respondent has failed to prove that she was legally wedded wife of this applicant. Learned Family Court has erroneously held that although the respondent is not a legally wedded wife of the applicant even then, she was entitled for maintenance. It was clear admission of the respondent in her cross-examination, that she was married to one Bisahu Ram Sahu and she has a son and daughter from that marriage. She also admitted that she has not obtained any divorce from Bisahu Ram Sahu from any Court of law. Another circumstance that was present was that the applicant was already married to one Devki Bai regarding which, the respondent had made admissions in her cross-examination. Therefore, the applicant and the respondent both were married and their spouses were living, hence, the relation between them could not be termed as a valid marriage.

(3.) Placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and Another, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 188, it is submitted that it is not a case in which the respondent was ignorant about previous marriage of the applicant, therefore, she cannot be deemed as legally wedded wife of the applicant. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another, reported in (1998) 1 SCC 530, in which it has been held that a woman marrying a man who is already married and his wife is living, is not entitled under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C., as such marriage is void ab initio. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that it has been similarly held in the cases of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat and Others, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 636 and D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 469, that for the purpose of Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. the wife must be legally wedded wife. It is further submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable, therefore, the revision petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.