JUDGMENT V.D. Gyani, J. 1. By this petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C the Petitioner challenges the order dated 20-2-89, passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone, in Criminal Revision No. 18/87, thereby dis-entitling the petitioner, from claiming maintenance allowance from her husband the respondent, on the ground that she was not his lawfully wedded wife. 2. Short facts in the case are that the petitioner filed an application Under Section 125 Cr. P.C., claiming maintenance. Her first application was in the year 1984, which she did not persue as the respondent perasuaded her to return to her matrimonial home on as assurance that he would be no longer ill-treated in future. However, taking advantage of non-prosecution of case, the respondent No. 1 started ill-treating the petitioner, who was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and file a fresh application for maintenance Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. which was filed some time in July 1985. The respondent No. 1 is her husband, while respondent No. 2 is their son, borne of the wedlock. 3. Respondents' main defence was that the petitioner not being the legally married wife, she was not entitled to maintenance. Her first husband Hiralal, had not divorced her when she married the respon- dent No. 1. 4. The trial Court however, rejecting the defence, granted mainten- ance allowance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. Aggrieved by this order both the parties preferred revisions, the husband for cancellation while, the wife for enhancement. They were registered as Criminal revisions No. 18/87 and 44/87. The revision petition preferred by the husband was allowed while that of the wife was dismissed. She has now approached this Court Under Section 482. 5. Heard Shri Laad for the petitioner and Shri Panjwani for the respondents. 6. Shri Panjwani learned Counsel for the respondents referred to a document 'Karanaman' Exp. NA/1. This 'Kararnama' is said to have been executed by the petitioner and it was produced by the respondents. It was on the basis of this agreement, that an argument was advanced that the wife could not claim any maintenance. 7. The legal rights, accrued to a wife under the law cannot be extinguished by such agreements. The very fact that such an agreement was required to be got executed, itself goes to show that there was the rela- tionsship of husband and wife, between the parties. 7. The legal rights, accrued to a wife under the law cannot be extinguished by such agreements. The very fact that such an agreement was required to be got executed, itself goes to show that there was the rela- tionsship of husband and wife, between the parties. This cases which have been referred to at the bar, as were also referred before the revisional Court, and relied upon by it are mostly cases, Under Section 494 IPC. What has been missed by the revisional Court is the nature of objection, taken by the respondent No. 1 the factum of marriage has not been denied. It was assailed on the ground that at the time of marriage with the respondent No. 1, her first husband Hiralal had not divorced her. It is also admitted by the respondent that a son Santosh and a daughter Kamla were borne to them. By status, conduct and repute, they were known to be and accepted by the society as husband and wife. The invalidity of marriage as pleaded by the respondent, was his burden to dis- charge, the revisional Court wrongly shifted this burden on the petitioner. As admitted by him, the petitioner had lived with him for about 8 to 10 years. The trial Court after discussing the evidence, has recorded the finding that 'Natra' a customary matriconial alliance recognised by the community to which the parties belong, had in fact taken place much before the coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. This finding has been disturbed by the revisional Court for on justifiable ground. 8. A host of authorities were cited by both the parties, the respon- dent relying on (AIR 1970 Gujarat P 137) Bhanu v. and 1988 M.P. Weekly notes Part (I) note 239, Yasunabai v. Anand Rao, have no application to the facts of the present case, in view of the categorical finding, noted above as recorded by the trial Court. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the order passed the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is liable to be quashed. It is accor dingly quashed, and the trial Court's order is restored. The petition stands allowed, as indicated above.