The lower revisional Court has set aside the order of the trial Magistrate only on the ground that the applicant is not the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant. Therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C., As shown above it is an admitted position that first wife of non-applicant Bisahuram Sahu was alive at the time when he married the applicant in Churi form and she is still alive. Though under section 125 Cr. P.c. the term wife has not been specifically defined as to include the second wife in Churi form, but the word 'wife' in this connection, refers only to the legally wedded wife. Wife means only a legitimate wife and, therefore, a marriage proved illegal cannot give any right to wife to get any maintenance. Held: The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the marriage of the applicant with the non- applicant in Churi form was according to the custom prevalent in the community and as such the marriage is legal. But section 4 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 overrides such customs. Section 40f the Act reads as under : "4. Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, (a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act; (b)----------------------------- Section 5(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act specifically bars the marriage between the two in case of a spouse living at the time of marriage. Admittedly, Smt. Baisakha Bai first wife of the non- applicant Bisahuram Sahu is still alive. In such a case the second marriage of the applicant with the non-applicant after coming into force of Hindu Marriage Act is barred in any form. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the decision of this Court in Misc. Petition No. 807 of 1980 (Dr. D.P. Thawait v. The State of M.P. & another) decided on 2.8.1983 on the point that the first marriage of the applicant with her previous husband was dissolved according to the custom of caste. This decision does not help the applicant because the only point now to be considered is the second marriage of the applicant with the non-applicant. D.P. Thawait v. The State of M.P. & another) decided on 2.8.1983 on the point that the first marriage of the applicant with her previous husband was dissolved according to the custom of caste. This decision does not help the applicant because the only point now to be considered is the second marriage of the applicant with the non-applicant. Since the non-applicant had already a wife living, the second marriage during the life time of the first wife is specifically barred under section 5(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, the marriage of the applicant with the non-applicant during the continuance of his marriage with his former wife is void and the second wife is not entitled to claim maintenance from her husband. I am supported on this view by decision of Allahabad High Court reported in AIR 1968 Allahabad 412 (Naurang Singh v. Sapia Devi). Therefore, the lower revisional Court was right in allowing the revision petition of the non-applicant and setting aside the order of the trial Magistrate. The lower revisional Court has not done any irregularity and illegality on the point. The revision has no merit. M.P. No. 807 of 1980 distinguished. AIR 1968 All. 412 relied on. Revision dismissed.