1. This defendant's revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.11.85 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj. 2. Briefly the facts giving rise to this revision are that the opposite party had claimed maintenance for herself and for her minor son U/S 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereafter, the Code, on the allegations that she is the wife of present petiti­oner and minor son was born of their wedlock. The learned Magis­trate by order dated 24.5.84 accepted the O.Ps. contention and allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- p.m. for the O.P. and Rs. 100/-to the baby w.e.f. 25.3.84 i.e. from the date, of the petition. The petitioner's revision was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. 3. I have heard Shri P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M. Singh learned counsel for the O.P. 4. Shri P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the O.P. is not the legally married wife of the petitioner and accordingly she is not entitled to maintenance. It has been urged that the O.P. was the wife of another person Hiralal and which marriage subsisted she had eloped to live with the petitioner and since her husband was alive there could not be any marriage with the petitioner in the eye of law. Shri M.Singh, learned counsel for the O.P. has not disputed that the O.P. was the wife of Hiralal but, submitted that even the petitioner had a wife, before the petitioner and the O.P. came to live together. Be that as it may, in so far as to the O.P. is concerned she can not be considered to be the wife of the petitioner so as to be entitled to invoke the provision of section 125 of the Code. The learned Sessions Judge has considered this fact but has relied upon a decision of this Court in Boli Narayan vs. Siddeswari, 1981 Criminal Law Journal, 674 to take the view that O.P. was entitled to maintenance. The learned Sessions Judge has considered this fact but has relied upon a decision of this Court in Boli Narayan vs. Siddeswari, 1981 Criminal Law Journal, 674 to take the view that O.P. was entitled to maintenance. The view taken in Boli Narayan (sqpra) quoted in the judgment learned Sess­ions Judge should not be attracted on the facts of this case where the O.P. had a spouse living when she came to live with the petitioner, in view of the Supreme Court decision in Smt. Yamnnabai vs. Anantrao, AIR 1988 SC 644 where it has been made clear that the law in section 125 of the Code has been enacted in the interest of a wife, and one who intends to take benefit under its sub-sec. (1) (a) has to esta­blish the necessary condition, namely, that she is the wife of the person concerned. In that case claimant had married Anantrao, who had earlier married one Smti Lilabai who was alive and the marriage was subsisting, and accordingly it was held that Smti Yamunabai could no$ be the wife of Anantrao.' The Court held that the marriage of a woman in accordance with the Hindu rites with a man having a living spouse is a complete rullity in the eye of law and she is, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of section 125 of the Code. It may be clear that in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court the view taken in Boli Narayan (supra) can not be attracted on the facts of this case. I, therefore hold that the O.P. was not the wife of the petitioner within the meaning and scope of the expression 'wife' in section 125 of the Code, and was not entitled to any maintenance. 5. In so far as the maintenance allowed to the minor child is concer­ned the courts below had found that he was the son of the petitioner. Shri Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to assail the finding. But the decision of the learned Sessions Judge shows that the matter had been properly considered and on evidence it was found that he was the child of the petitioner. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept this contention on behalf of the petitioner that the minor child is not I his son. But the decision of the learned Sessions Judge shows that the matter had been properly considered and on evidence it was found that he was the child of the petitioner. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept this contention on behalf of the petitioner that the minor child is not I his son. Even though, the O P. is not the wife of the petitioner yet the petitioner is liable for maintenance of the miner son. I hold accordingly. 6. For the aforesaid reasons this petition is partly allowed to the extent that the maintenance allowed to the O.P. is set aside while in so far as the maintenance to minor son allowed is concerned, it is dismissed. Parties to bear own costs.