M SAINATH LINGANNA Vs. EZAF PENTAVVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred by the petitioner-husband, against order, dated 08.10.2002, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa, in M.C.No.3 of 2002, by which the Court below awarded monthly maintenance at. the rate of Rs.300/- to the first respondent and Rs.200/- to the second respondent. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was performed in the year 1998 as per Hindu rites and customs, and the reafter they lived happily for some time. During their wedlock, the second respondent was born on 10.01.1999. However, after the cradle ceremony of the second respondent, the petitioner started ill-treating the first respondent demanding an amount of Rs.50,OO0/- from her parents for the purpose of constructing a house. When the first respondent expressed her inability to get such a huge amount, the petitioner started harassing and threatening her. While so, the petitioner wanted to go for second marriage. Coming to know about the same, the parents of the first respondent informed about the marriage of the petitioner with the fist respondent to the parents of the girl, whom the petitioner wanted to marry. The petitioner filed O.S.No.35 of 1999 on the file of the: Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa, seeking a declaration that: the first respondent is not his legally wedded wife, but the said suit was dismissed on 08.09.2000. According to the respondents, the petitioner married another woman by name Sudha and is living with her, and on account of the adamant attitude and negligence of the petitioner, the respondents started living separately and as they are unable to maintain themselves, they filed the said Maintenance Case against the petitioner claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- to the first respondent and Rs.400/- to the second respondent. To substantiate their case, respondents 1 and 2 herein examined P.Ws.l to 7 and got marked Exs.P2 to P3 on their behalf. On the other hand, the petitioner herein examined R.Ws.l and 2 and got marked Exs.Rl to 88. Considering the said oral and documentary evidence, the Court below awarded maintenance as stated supra. Aggrieved thereby, this revision is preferred. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no marriage at all between the petitioner and the first respondent and in the absence of any proof that the first respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, she is not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of the: Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C."). In this context the learned counsel has drawn my attention to Section 125 Cr.P.C, sand laid stress on the word 'wife' incorporated under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and strenuously contended that wife means 'legally wedded woman but not any other woman'.

(3.) Section 125 Cr.P.C., is meant for providing maintenance to the wives, who are willfully refused or neglected by the husbands, and who are unable to maintain themselves. Though it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner married one Sudha and she is only his legally wedded wife, and tried to establish the said fact by examining R.W.2, besides examining himself as R.W.I, in my considered view the said evidence 'cannot be accepted, having regard to the fact that O.S.No.35 of 1999 filed by the petitioner, seeking a declaration that the first respondent is not his legally wedded wife, was dismissed by a competent Civil Court on 08.09.2000. Further, the respondents have placed ample evidence establishing that the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was performed in the presence of P.Ws.3,4 and 5, and that they lived in the house of Gangawa, who was examined as P.W.2.