J. G. CHITRE, J, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is hereby praying for invoking the powers of High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (here in after referred to as Codet ). ( 2 ) THE marriage between the petitioner and the respondents took place at Gautampura, Indore as per Muslim religious way and was performed by one Kazi Abdul Kuddus on 4. 5. 1982. The petitioner averred in this petition that at the time of, said marriage the age of petitioner was 8 years and age of respondent was 6 years. After the marriage, as record shows respondent Hasinabee resided with the petitioner in his house for about one year and thereafter they were separated. After exchange of notices, Hasinabee filed a petition for alimony in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Depalpur, and by order dated 22. 7. 1988 the learned Magistrate allowed her application and granted alimony to her to the tune of Rs. 200/- per month payable by petitioner Peer Mohammad. He filed a revision petition against that order bearing No. 122/88 which was decided by A. S. I. Indore on 14. 2. 1990. The learned A. S. J. dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner and maintained the order of learned I M. F. C. ( 3 ) IN the present petition, Shri L. N. Soni, counsel for the petitioner argued that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent is not legal marriage because at the time of said marriage neither the petitioner was major nor the respondent. He submitted that both the Courts below did not give proper consideration to this aspect of the matter, and, therefore, High Court should exercise powers under Sec. 482 of the Code and set right the abuse of process of the law Shri. Vijayvargiya, counsel for the respondent submitted that the said marriage took place in presence of Kazi and the certified copy of the register of Kazi shows that the said marriage was performed by the consent of the guardian of Respondent Hasinabee. He submitted that the said point has been considered by the Courts below and, therefore, there is not substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. He submitted that the said point has been considered by the Courts below and, therefore, there is not substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. ( 4 ) I do not find any substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner because the extract from the concerned register of the Kazi makes it very clear that on 4. 5. 1982 when the said marriage was performed, the age of the petitioner was 20 years and though the age of respondent Hasinabee was 14 yrs. the consent for the said marriage was obtained from the guardian of the respondent Hasinabee. His name has been shown as Nabubhai father of Guffur Khan Pinzara, and he happens to be the grand father of the respondent V. J Hasinabee. This aspect has been considered by M the Sessions Court in its judgment. A boy or girl, who has not attained puberty (minor) is not competent to enter into a contract of marriage but he or she can be contracted on marriage by his/her guardian. Sec. 271 of the Mohammedan Law provided that the right to contract a minor in marriage belongs successively to the (1) father (2) paternal grandfather how high so ever, and (3) brother and other male relations on fathers side in the order of inheritance enumerated in the Table of Residuaries. T ( 5 ) IN the present matter the record of Kazi shows that the parental grandfather of respondent was present for compliance of the requirements of the marriage as per Mohatnmedan Law. ( 6 ) BESIDES that the evidence on record shows that the respondent was residing after the marriage in the house of the petitioner for about one year and both of them were behaving like husband and wife. Further, the evidence on record discloses that during this period, the petitioner did not contend that the said marriage was illegal. On the contrary, he associated himself with respondent as her husband. He has not disowned her during that period by contending that it was illegal marriage. He has acted upon the said marriage and has associated himself with respondent as husband. Now he cannot be permitted to contend that said marriage is illegal. On the contrary, he associated himself with respondent as her husband. He has not disowned her during that period by contending that it was illegal marriage. He has acted upon the said marriage and has associated himself with respondent as husband. Now he cannot be permitted to contend that said marriage is illegal. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that during pendency of revision petition the petitioner had divorced the respondent and, therefore; the order of alimony passed in her favour should be set aside. Shri Vijayvargiya for respondent, opposed. ( 8 ) I do not find any substance in this submission also. Because when the proceeding u/s 125 of the Code was being conducted, respondent Hasinabee was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, Peer Mohammad and even after the said proceeding was concluded and order of alimony was passed in favour of respondent Hasinabee, she was legally wedded wife of the petitioner. It has now been contended by the petitioner that during pendency of revision petition, he had divorced Hasinabee and, therefore provisions of Muslim Woman (protection and Divorce) Act, 1985 (here in after referred to as Act), would be applicable. It is pertinent to note that when the said order of alimony was passed in favour of respondent Hasinabee, she was not a divorced woman, as she had not acquired the said status. Even in view of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, she had not opted for the previsions of the Act. The said order of alimony was passed in her favour when she was having status as LEGALLY WEDDED WIFET of the petitioner and had not acquired the status as TDIVORCED WOMAN. In view of that, the provisions of act would not be applicable, to the said order of alimony passed in favour of the respondent Hasinabee. ( 9 ) IT is pertinent to note that in this matter the evidence on record proves that when the petitioner was giving evidence, he had already married with another woman and was living with her as husband and wife. That means he had contracted a marriage with a woman other than respondent Hasinabee. Thus, in view of that, and in view of provisions of Sec. 125 of the Code, the order of alimony passed in favour of Hasinabee was quite correct, proper and legal. That means he had contracted a marriage with a woman other than respondent Hasinabee. Thus, in view of that, and in view of provisions of Sec. 125 of the Code, the order of alimony passed in favour of Hasinabee was quite correct, proper and legal. There is no need of invoking powers of this High Court u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. ( 10 ) THUS, in view of the discussion made above, I dismiss this petition. Revision dismissed. .