JUDGMENT 1. - This is a Misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. PC against the order dated, 29th March, 1985 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2 Alwar. The learned Judge dismissed the revision petition preferred before him by the petitioner and upheld the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate made in favour of the Smt. Bhori under sub-section (I) of Section 125 Cr. PC Under Order dated December 6, 1983 the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Alwar awarded a sum of Rs. 150/- per month against the petitioner and in favour of the non-petitioner. 2. An application under Section 125 Cr. PC was made by the non-petitioner against the petitioner in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Alwar on 29th May, 1981 that her re-marriage in accordance with custom of the cast and Hindu religion took place with the petitioner in the year 1947 at Alwar. Since then she lived with the petitioner and as many as six children were born and their names were mentioned in para 3 of the petition. It was further stated that for the 7 years the petitioner was treating her with cruelty and had beaten her and there was a danger to her life. She was turned out of the house by the petitioner about 5 years ago. It was further stated that the petitioner is a money lender and his income from that source is 500/- per month and he was also running a shop and earned Rs. 2,000/- per month. The application was contested by the petitioner who denied the remarriage of the non-petitioner with him. He set up a case that his wife was alive till the year 1956 and the non-petitioner had only been brought to look after her as his first wife was ailing. It was for her stated that after the death of his wife the non petitioner lived with him as his concubine. It was not disputed that 6 children as mentioned in para 3 of the petition were born as alleged by the non-petitioner. An offer was made by the petitioner that in case the non-petitioner is willing to live with him as his concubine as she was living earlier, the petitioner was ready to keep her. It is also stated in the said reply that the non-petitioner was earning and she has means to support herself. An offer was made by the petitioner that in case the non-petitioner is willing to live with him as his concubine as she was living earlier, the petitioner was ready to keep her. It is also stated in the said reply that the non-petitioner was earning and she has means to support herself. According to the petitioner, when the non-petitioner was living in the house to look after his ailing wife he developed illicit relations with her and 6 children were delivered out of illicit relations. The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence in his order dated December, 1986 allowed the application and he held that the non-petitioner lived with the petitioner as his wife and as many as 6 children were born out of his relationship. He concluded that there were relations between them as husband and wife. The learned Magistrate allowed Rs. 150/-per month. The petitioner preferred an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the applications. 3. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. P C. Jain learned counsel for the non petitioners wife that it is a concurrent finding of fact tnat the non-petitioner was living with the petitioner as wife and while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. PC the court should not interfere in that finding and should leave the petitioner to agitate the question in a competent Civil Court. In respect of his submission Mr. Jain has placed reliance on Smt. Dukta Jahan v. Mohmmed Farook, AIR 1987 May Part P. 1049 . It was a case under section 125 Cr. PC in respect of the maintainance of a child. On the application of the wife seeking maintenance for the child, the husband raised a dispute. The matter was taken by the wife to the SC as the High Court has quashed the order of maintenance made in favour of the minor child by the special Judicial Magistrate No. 1. The Supreme Court reversing the judgment of the High Court on facts and holding that it cannot be said that the husband is not the father of the child, the child was born within 7 months of the marriage further held in para 16 as under:- "The proper course for the High Court, even if entitled to interfere with the concurrent finding of the Courts below in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr. PC should have been to sustain the order of maintenance and direct the respondent to seek an appropriate declaration in the Civil Court, after a fulfleged trial, that the child was not born to him and as such he is not legally liable to maintain it. Proceedings under Section 125 Cr. PC it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they as legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner. The High Court was, therefore, clearly in error in quashing the order of maintenance in favour of the child." Mr. S.K Jain learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is a case where there is absolutely no material or evidence on record that the non-petitioner is the wife of the petitioner. According to him the "wife" for the purpose of Section 125 Cr. PC will mean a duly wedded wife, marriage having taken place in accordance with the law. He further contended that in the instant case there is material on record that when in the year 1947, the non-petitioner, is said to have remarried the petitioner, the first wife of the petitioner was alive. Not only this, he farther contended that the non-petitioner Smt. Bhori Bhai in her statement also stated at the time of her remarriage her husband was alive. Because she had not taken divorce from her earlier husband Chotelal during the subsistence of that no remarriage with the petitioner could have taken place. Thus his contention is that even if there may be presumption from long association of the petitioner and non petitioner and as many as 6 children were born, the presumption that they were husband and wife stands rebutted. In respect of his contention Mr. S K. Jain learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the case of this Court Manna Lal v. State of Rajasthan reported in RLW 1966 p. 460 . It was a case where some persons were prosecuted under Section 336 IPC. The learned Judge referred to the observations of Walsh J. in Gendalu Narian v. Emperor, AIR 1932 Madras 561 . It was a case where some persons were prosecuted under Section 336 IPC. The learned Judge referred to the observations of Walsh J. in Gendalu Narian v. Emperor, AIR 1932 Madras 561 . In the said case it was held that:- "Custom of second marriage during the life-time of the first husband and without the first marriage being annulled by divorce or in some formal manner recognised by caste usage equivalent to divorce the mere wish of the women against that of her husband being insufficient is an offence under Section 494." 4. The learned Judge referred to the case of Gopi Krisha Kasaudhar v. Mst. Jagge, AIR 136 UC 198 wherein the Privy Council held that the abandonment by the husband was treated as amounting to divorce. It was further held that the authority cannot be said to have laid down law that abandonment by the husband per-se should operate as a divorce. In my opinion, the case of Manna Lal v. State (supra) is not applicable in the instant ease. The very fact that the first husband Chotelal though alive in 1947 did not take any steps to bring the non-petitioner from the house of the petitioner for the purpose of the disposal of this Misc. application under Section 482 Cr. PC maybe taken as act of abandonment by the husband. So far as the fact that the first wife of the petitioner was alive till the year 1956 and therefore, in the year 1947 she was alive when the re-marriage of the non-petitioner is said to have been took place is concerned it will not make any difference as under the law then applicable there were as bar for keeping more than one wife. In the case of Bewa Ram Balwant Khatai and another v. Ramratan Balwant Khatai and others, AIR 1963 M.P. 160 suit had been filed for declaration that Ramratan, Jagannath and Bapu are not the legitimate sons of their father Balwant. An argument was advanced in para 4 before the learned Judge that in view of the clear proof of the circumstance that Kanwarbais former husband was alive when she began to live with Balwant, presumption as to validity of marriage between them could not have been drawn. An argument was advanced in para 4 before the learned Judge that in view of the clear proof of the circumstance that Kanwarbais former husband was alive when she began to live with Balwant, presumption as to validity of marriage between them could not have been drawn. This contention was not accepted and referring to the Mullas Hindu Law at page 616 wherein it has been stated as under:- Similarly the fact that a woman was living under the control and protection of a man who generally lived with her and acknowledged her children raises a strong presumption that she is the wife of that man. But this presumption may be rebutted by proof of facts showing that as marriage could have taken place". The Court said that:- "Long cohabitation between a man and a woman raises a clear presumption of marriage particularly where they lived as husband and wife and the children were born and where these children were treated as the children of the man by the community. The presumption, no doubt is rebuttable but the evidence of rebutting that presumption must be clear and specific and ought to indicate that no valid marriage could have taken place between them." 5. Coming to the facts of the instant case as already stated earlier it was pleaded by the petitioner that her remarriage with the petitioner was in accordance with the custom of the caste and Hindu religion. It was also stated in para 3 that out of this relation-ship 6 children were born. Thus as stated in the application under Section 125 Cr. PC a re-marriage took place and they lived together as husband and wife for 30 years and 6 children were born. The birth of the Children was not disputed by the petitioner and it is not disputed that he looks after all the 6 children and non-petitioner is their mother. But his case was that the non-petitioner was a concubine & he had illicit relations with her. He admits the birth of the 6 children. He also stated that there was custom in their cast of re marriage. The non-petitioner in her statement as already stated earlier said that there was a remarriage which hid taken place. She also stated that where a Pandit had come and father and mother had also arrived at the time of re-marriage, the necessary ceremonies were performed. He also stated that there was custom in their cast of re marriage. The non-petitioner in her statement as already stated earlier said that there was a remarriage which hid taken place. She also stated that where a Pandit had come and father and mother had also arrived at the time of re-marriage, the necessary ceremonies were performed. She admits that there was no ceremony of "Satpati". Smt. Sampati PW 2 also stated that the remarriage took place and she was present. She has also described some ceremonies which took-place. Mani Ram PW 1 stated that the petitioner and non-petitioner had lived together. Thus he lived with her for a continuous period of 30 years. The petitioner lived with the non-petitioner and both were known as husband and wife in the community, 6 children were born who are known as the sons of the petitioner are such circumstances that those facts raise a presumption that the non-petitioner is wife of the petitioner and an order under Section 125 Cr. PC has been rightly made, no case for interference in exercise of the powers under Section 482 is made out. It is open for the petitioner to seek declaration from Civil Court that the non-petitioner is not his wife and the order of the Criminal court cannot came in the way of such a declaration. There is no force in this Misc. petition and it is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******