JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 12-1-1987 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch in Criminal Revision No. 109 of 1984 whereby order under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short the Code) regarding maintenance to the petitioner has been set aside. ( 2. ) RELEVANT circumstances giving rise to this petition are these. The present petitioner filed an application under section 125 of the Code before the Judicial magistrate, First Class, Jawad on 20-12-1980 for an order in her favour and in favour of her minor son alleging that the non-applicant Udailal is her husband and had been treating her with cruelty and is living with another woman. ( 3. ) THE learned Magistrate found in favour of the applicant and passed an order making a monthly allowance in the sum of Rs. 300/- for the applicant with effect from 1-7-1984. ( 4. ) AGGRIEVED by the order aforesaid, the non-applicant filed a revision petition in the Court of Session, Mandsaur. By the impugned order the learned additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch, has held that the woman with whom the non-applicant is living is no other than Kamlabai his previously wedded wife and in view of the said marriage subsisting on the date of marriage bet ween the present petitioner and the non-applicant the second marriage was null and void and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to invoke section 125 of the Code. ( 5. ) THE contention of the petitioner in this Court is that the marriage between Kamlabai and the non-applicant has not been proved. It is further urged that at any rate there is evidence that the non-applicant has divorced Kamlabai before marrying the petitioner. ( 6. ) THE point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed ( 7. ) THE non-applicant Udailalhas stated that he was first married on Baisakh sudi 3, Samwat2020 to Kamlabai, one of the daughters of Mathuralal resident of village Sarlai and as she bore no child, he married another Kamlabai daughter of one Khemraj who gave birth to a daughter, but later died and on her death he married the petitioner. He has stated that the three daughters of Mathuralal including Kamlabai were married on the same day. He has stated that the three daughters of Mathuralal including Kamlabai were married on the same day. Nathulal (N. A. W. 4) and mangilal (N. A. W. 6) have stated that they are the sons-in-law of Mathuralal and their marriage has taken place on the same day as stated by Udailal. ( 8. ) RUPLAL aged 65 years is the Pandit who has also supported the version of udailal that he was married to Kamlabai daughter of Mathuralal. ( 9. ) THE aforesaid evidence finds further support in the allegation made in paragraph 3 of the application under section 125 of the Code. Therein it has been stated that the non-applicant is keeping Kamlabai daughter of Mathuralal who had been, according to caste custom abandoned some 18 years back. The learned inquiring Magistrate has not considered the effect of this material. ( 10. ) IT may be pointed out that in the application under section 125 of the code there is no specific pleading regarding customary divorce. At any rate, there is no evidence worth the name to hold that there had been a divorce. Therefore, on the material on record, the conclusion of the learned Additional Sessions judge that at the time of marriage between the petitioner and the non-applicant the latters first marriage with Kamlabai daughter of Mathuralal was subsisting, is on firm foundation. Then what status did the marriage confirm on the petitioner? ( 11. ) THE decision in Banshidhars case, AIR 1967 Patna 277 makes an illuminating reading on the various provisions in sections 5 (1), 11, 12, 16 and 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the act) and the corresponding provision in Section 488 of the repealed Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 regarding maintenance. According to the decision, the marriage of a person whose spouse is living is void under the Act and does not alter or affect the status of parties nor does it create between them any rights and obligations which must normally arise from a valid marriage except such rights as are expressly recognised by the Act. According to the decision, the marriage of a person whose spouse is living is void under the Act and does not alter or affect the status of parties nor does it create between them any rights and obligations which must normally arise from a valid marriage except such rights as are expressly recognised by the Act. In this very connection reference may also be usefully made to the decision in Naurang Singhs case, AIR 1968 Allahabad 412 in which reliance has been placed on the observations made in connection with sections 5 and 11 of the act, in the decision in Mohammad Ikram Hussains case, AIR 1964 SC 1625 . ( 12. ) UNDER section 125 of the Code irrespective of the personal law wife is entitled to maintenance. By the explanation below sub-section (1) of section 125, the term wife for the purposes of Chapter IX of the Code, has been given a wider import. It cannot however, be urged with any measure of success, that where there is marriage in fact though it is void in the eye of law, it is sufficient to give to the woman concerned the status of wife for the purposes of Section 125 of the code which occurs in that Chapter. It is true that the lot of a woman who does not know about the previous marriage of the man and enters into marriage with him can better be imagined than described. But the courts can do precious little in the matter and the appeal must lie to the legislature. Howsoever, one may wish that the case of such a woman deserves a sympathetic treatment. She cannot be held entitled to invoke the existing provision of Section 125, of the Code which is meant only for legally wedded wife. It may be noted that in section 125 (l) (c) specific mention has been made to an illegitimate child and by the unqualified term wife as used in section 125 of the Code, it cannot be held that the legislature intended to include even woman whose marriage is void under law. The decisions in sonafulobais case, 1981 JLJ SN 9 and Bakulabais case, 1988 (1) MPWN 83 are apposite. ( 13. The decisions in sonafulobais case, 1981 JLJ SN 9 and Bakulabais case, 1988 (1) MPWN 83 are apposite. ( 13. ) ON a careful consideration, I am of the view that the learned Additional sessions Judge rightly set aside the finding of the learned Magistrate that the petitioner is the wife of the non-applicant and is entitled to an order under section 125 of the Code. ( 14. ) IN view of what has been stated above, it is not necessary to go into the other factual contentions. ( 15. ) IN the ultimate analysis I find that there is no merit in the revision petition and it deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed.