SAYANNA Vs. LAXMI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Wife and son of the petitioner - herein filed M.C. No. 2/88 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Bichkunda for maintenance under S. 125, Cr.P.C. that was contested by the husband - petitioner herein on the ground that the wife, Ist respondent - herein is not entitled to maintenance as she is his second wife and his first wife is living. So far as the son is concerned Rs. 100.00 was granted as maintenance and the claim is so far as the Ist respondent - wife is concerned, it was rejected. The maintenance to son, i.e., the 2nd respondent was granted on the ground that even under S. 125, Cr.P.C. an illegitimate son or child is entitled to claim maintenance. Against that, they preferred a revision to the Sessions Court in Crl.R.P.No.3 of 1990 and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad granted Rs. 200.00 to the Ist respondent and Rs. 150.00 to the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by that order, the husband - petitioner herein filed this revision.

(2.) B.Prakasarao, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the grant of maintenance to the Ist respondent - herein is contrary to law inasmuch as, the petitioner is having his first wife living and their marriage is subsisting and that the petitioner had not married the Ist respondent. He contended further that so long as the first wife of a Hindu is living and their marriage is subsisting, the question of contacting second marriage does not arise and if the second marriage takes place it is hit by the provisions of S. 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act and becomes a void marriage. Therefore, he contended that the Ist respondent - herein is not at all entitled to claim maintenance. So far as the maintenance granted to the 2nd respondent, he contended that the maintenance amount is on the high side and it is liable to be reduced.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri Mallareddy, counsel for the respondents contended that as the parentage of the 2nd respondent is not disputed by the petitioner the child is entitled to maintenance. He further contended that the Ist petitioner is also entitled to maintenance for the reason that the petitioner lived with her for some time and begot a child through her by enjoying her. Moreover, he submits that according to the caste custom of the parties in this case a second marriage is permissible.