Judgment The revision is against the order of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, in Cri.R.C.No.34 of 1982, reversing the order of maintenance passed by the 13th Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras in M.C.No.4741 of 1980. The petitioner in the M.C. is the revision petitioner. 2. The revision petitioner filed M.C.No.4741 of 1980 before the 13th Metropolitan Magistrate, claiming maintenance from the respondent. She contended that she and the respondent got married in 1953 and they lived together till 1978 and from that year the respondent failed to maintain her. Hence an application for maintenance under S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was filed. 3. The defence was that the respondent did not marry the petitioner and she was not his legally wedded wife. According to him, she was only his concubine. 4. The learned 13th Metropolitan Magistrate accepted the case of the petitioner, found her to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent and awarded maintenance at Rs.100 per mensem. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the 13th Metropolitan Magistrate the respondent-husband preferred Criminal Revision Case 34 of 1982 before the Court of Session, Madras. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the revision case, found that the respondent was already married to one Sundarammal as early as 1947 and hence the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, which is said to have taken place in 1953, was void in law in view of the Hindu Bigamy Prevention and Divorce Act, 1949. He, therefore, allowed the revision case and dismissed the petition for maintenance. It is against the said order, this criminal revision case has been filed by the petitioner-wife. 6. According to the respondent, he married one Sundarammal in 1947 and has got several children through her. It is also admitted by the petitioner in her evidence that the said Sundarammal had six children. The said Sundarammal is none-else, but the senior paternal uncle's daughter of the petitioner. The testimony of the petitioner that she did not know whether the respondent had married Sundarammal already is merely an attempt to hide the fact. It is also admitted by the petitioner in her evidence that the said Sundarammal had six children. The said Sundarammal is none-else, but the senior paternal uncle's daughter of the petitioner. The testimony of the petitioner that she did not know whether the respondent had married Sundarammal already is merely an attempt to hide the fact. There is also evidence to show that the said Sundarammal has filed a petition for maintenance against the respondent in M.C.No.861 of 1966 on her behalf and on behalf of her two minor children and maintenance has been awarded to her at Rs.10 per mensem, for her son Sundaramurthy at Rs. 4 per mensem and for another son Anbazhagan at Rs. 3 per mensem. P.W.2 has also admitted that the respondent was already married to Sundarammal and got children through her. It is, therefore, established beyond doubt that the respondent had a wife living at the time when he is alleged to have married to petitioner in 1953. The Hindu Bigamy Prevention and Divorce Act, 1949 was then in force and it rendered the bigamous marriage void. It follows that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, assuming that it took place in 1953 is void in law and the petitioner does not get the status of a wife so as to entitle her to claim maintenance. The Second Additional Sessions. Judge has, therefore, rightly dismissed the petition. 7. In the result, the criminal revision case fails and it is dismissed. B.S. ----- Petition dismissed.