Honble SINGH, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2-4. (2). This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the order passed by the learned Session Judge, Pali in Criminal Revision Petition No. 3/94 Vijay Singh vs. Sugan Kanwar and Ors. on 1st December, 1994. By the aforesaid order the learned Sessions Judge, Pali rejected the revision petition No. 3/94 filed by Vijay Singh against the grant of interim maintenance allowance to his two minor children and partly allowed the revision petition No. 4/94 filed by Smt. Sugan Kanwar. The learned Sessions Judge gave a direction to the Magistrate that he would give a finding about the question whether the customary marriage by Nata is prevelant in the community of parties and whether the non-petitioner No.2 had been divorced from her husband according to the custom prevelant in the community. (3). It appears that a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Co- de was filed in the Court of the learned Magistrate for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 31st January, 1994 considered the question of grant of interim maintenance allowance. He refused to grant interim maintenance allowance to Smt. Sugan Kanwar, who alleges that she is the legally married wife of petitioner Vijay Singh but the learned Magistrate granted interim maintenance allowance to Sajjan Singh and Dharmendra Singh, who are minor children of Sugan Kanwar. It is not seriously disputed by Vijay Singh that he is their father. Being aggrieved by the order refusing to grant interim maintenance allowance to her Smt. Sugan Kanwar filed a revision petition No. 4/94 and being aggrieved by the order granting interim maintenance allowance to Sajjan Singh and Dharmendra Singh the petitioner Vijay Singh filed the revision Petition No. 3/94. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision petition filed by Vijay Singh and remanded the case to the Judicial Magistrate so far as the revision petition filed by Smt. Sugan Kanwar was. (4). It has not been seriously disputed that Sajjan Singh and Dharmendra Singh are the sons of the petitioner Vijay Singh. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision petition filed by Vijay Singh and remanded the case to the Judicial Magistrate so far as the revision petition filed by Smt. Sugan Kanwar was. (4). It has not been seriously disputed that Sajjan Singh and Dharmendra Singh are the sons of the petitioner Vijay Singh. For the purpose of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code it is not material whether they are legitimate or illegitimate because illegitimate children are as much entitled to grant of maintenance allowance from the father as the legitimate ones. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is willing to keep the children with him and, therefore, he cannot be forced to pay maintenance allowance so long the children are not living with him. I am afraid this submission cannot be accepted. Maintenance allowance is granted with a view to save the minor children from starvation and wants, irrespective of the fact whether they are staying with the father or with the mother. Mother is one of the natural guardian of minor children, therefore, staying with the mother and acting under her directions cannot be said to be an act of such nature as may deprive the minor children of the right to obtain maintenance from their father. If the petitioner sincerely wants to keep his sons with him nothing prevents him from filing a petition before the Competent Court for granting him the custody of his minor children in accordance with law. It does not appear that he has moved any such petition before the Competent Court. In these circumstances grant of interim maintenance allowance to the children appears to be quite just and necessary and no interference by this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is necessary. Consequently, the order of the learned Magistrate granting interim maintenance allowance to non- petition- er No. three and four and the rejection of criminal revision petition No. 8/94 by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali need no interference. (5). So far as the decision of the learned Magistrate regarding the grant of interim maintenance allowance to non-petitioner No.2 is concerned the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that for grant of maintenance to wife, it must be shown that she is legally married wife. (5). So far as the decision of the learned Magistrate regarding the grant of interim maintenance allowance to non-petitioner No.2 is concerned the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that for grant of maintenance to wife, it must be shown that she is legally married wife. The learned Magistrate was not convinced that the alleged Nata Marriage is sufficient to confer legal rights as wife on a woman and he was also not convinced that the non petitioner No.2 had given divorce to her former husband in accordance with law. It is well established that if any person is legally married and there has been no dissolution of marriage by valid divorce then during the life time of his or her spouse second marriage cannot be celebrated and if it is celebrated then the second marriage would be no marriage in the eye of law. Dissolution of former marriage in accordance with law is, therefore, essential for a valid second marriage. The observations made by the learned Magistrate do not appear to be unwarranted. It is for the non-petitioner No.2 to prove by adducing evidence before the learned Magistrate to show that the first marriage was dissolved in accordance with the provisions of law. Therefore, refusal of interim maintenance allowance to her for want of proof that she was legally divorced from her former husband and that the second marriage was celebrated according to custom laid in Nata was legaly valid and does not call for any interference by this Court at this stage. The direction of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petition No. 4/94 that the learned Magistrate would give a finding about the dissolution of former marriage as well as about the validity of Nata marriage appears to be quite unnecessary because even without such direction the Magistrate would have considered both the points for deciding the application of non-petitioner No.2. However, the directions given by the Sessions Judge, Pali do not appear to have caused an injustice to either party because the question involved will have to be considered by learned Magistrate at both the stages namely at the stage of granting interim maintenance as well as at the stage of final disposal of the application. Therefore, no interference with the direction at this stage is necessary. Therefore, no interference with the direction at this stage is necessary. The petitioner Vijay Singh will have ample right to prove by adducing evidence that the alleged nata marriage is not a marriage in the eye of law and in due course the learned Magistrate after considering the contentions of both the parties and the evidence produced by the parties would give a decision on the application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. With these observations this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is rejected, and is hereby rejected.