KALU RAM Vs. SMT. LACHMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision impugns the order dated Feb.20, 1998 of the learned Judge Family Court Jaipur whereby the application under Sec. 125 Crimial P.C. submitted by the non-petitioner was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.400.00 per month to the non-petitioner from the date of filing the application.

(2.) Mr. Narendra Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made scathing criticism of the impugned order and canvassed that marriage between the petitioner and non-petitioner was void ab-initio. The petitioner was already married but was having no issue therefore he entered into second marriage With the non-petitioner. Second marriage is not permissible amongst Hindus. The non-petitioner also admitted this fact in her application that the. petitioner was already married. Mr. Jain, learned counsel further contended that provisions of section 125 Cr.PC. are not applicable to second marriage and second wife is not entitled to maintenance. Reliance was placed on Smt. Yamuna Bai Vs. Anant Rao (AIR 1988 SC 644) Mst. Sarbati Vs. Ramchandra (RLW 1989 (1) 243) and Ram Charan Singh Vs. Smt. Sushila Devi (1987 WLC (Raj.) 263) .

(3.) I am afraid, the argument is not well founded. Admittedly, the petitioner and non-petitioner belong to Meena Schedule Tribe and are not governed by the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by virtue of section 2 of the said Act. Customary Nata Marriages are recognised amongst Meenas. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was already married when he entered into 'Nata Marriage' with the non-petitioner but in view of custom prevailing in 'Meena tribe' it can not be said that 'Nata marriage' was void ab-initio. Therefore, I hold that 'Nata marriage' of the non-petitioner with the petitioner was governed by their personnel law and application under section 125 Cr.PC. was maintainable.