SARSWATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 22-8-2002 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in Misc. Case No. 17 of 2000 (Trial No. 186 of 2002), whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 13-1-2004; passed by the Sessions Judge, Jehanabad in Criminal Revision No. 73 of 2003, whereby the revision preferred against the aforesaid order has been dismissed.

(2.) Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner filed application for maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inter alia, alleging that he married Opposite Party No. 2 according to Hindu rites in the year 1980 and excepting for the brief period lived as husband and wife till Dec., 1999. Petitioner has herself averred in her application that her husband Opposite Party No. 2 was married from before but had married her again, concealing the aforesaid fact as he had no child from the first marriage. The learned Magistrate on the plea of the petitioner itself found that her marriage cannot be said to be a valid marriage and, therefore, not entitled for maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Revisional Court agreeing with the same, by the impugned order, has dismissed the revision application.

(3.) Mr. S.R.C. Pandey, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the heading of Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the 'Code', provides for order for maintenance of wives and, as such, petitioner cannot be denied maintenance only on the ground that she happens to be the second wife. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Pal Kaur Chawla Vs. Manjeet Singh Chawla, (2004)9 SCC 617 : (AIR 2004 SC 3453) and my attention has been drawn to Paragraph 9 of the judgment which reads as follows :