ORDER J.G. Chitre, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the purpose of invoking the inherent powers of the High Court for the purpose of quashing the order which has been passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore in the matter of M. Cr. C. 66/95 on 18.9.95 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 500/- per month opponent (Rs. 300/- to wife Chamchambai and Rs. 200/- for daughter) from 19.9.83 and that too before 10th instant of each month, as alimony. 2. The facts of the matter can be enumerated as mentioned hereunder: Present petitioner, Jagdish and the opponent, Chamchambai were married with each other in year 1973 and a daughter was born out of the said wedlock. Chamchambai alleged that in the year 1994 she was driven out of the house by Jagdish after assaulting her and, threfore, she took the shelter in her parents house. A report in respect of said incident was made by Chamchambai in Police Outpost Compel. Chamchambai has alleged that on 15.3.83 Jagdish had remarried with one Sarswatibai and said Sarswatibai is residing with Jagdish and two children have been begotten out of that wedlock. As per allegation of Chamchambai, a notice was sent to Jagdish by her on 21.7.83 through Mr. M.S. Choudhary, advocate, which was received by Jagdish but Jagdish did not reply to that notice nor paid her the alimony demanded by Chamchambai. 3. An application was filed in the Court in J.M.F.C. Indore for getting alimony from Jagdish by Chamchambai. Both Chamchambai and Jagdish examined some witnesses for proving their case. Learned trial court after appreciating the evidence on record concluded that it was proved that having sufficient means Jagdish neglected or refused to maintain his legally wedded wife Chamchambai who was not having sufficient means to maintain here self. This the learned trial court passed the order of alimony in favour of Chamchambai payable by present petitioner - Jagdish which was challenged by Jagdish by filing revision petition in sessions court of Indore and that revision petition was decided by 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore. 4. 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore decided said Cr. This the learned trial court passed the order of alimony in favour of Chamchambai payable by present petitioner - Jagdish which was challenged by Jagdish by filing revision petition in sessions court of Indore and that revision petition was decided by 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore. 4. 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore decided said Cr. R. bearing No. 467/95 and confirmed the finding recorded by the trial court and dismissed the revision petition by coming to the conclusion that there was no legal ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the trial court and the order passed by it granting alimony to Chamchambai and her daughter payable by the present petitioner, Jagdish. By assailing that order, the petitioner has come to this court with this M. Cr. C. for invoking the inherent powers of this Court. 5. Shri SG Gokhale, learned counsel appearing for petitioner Jagdish argued that the trial court has not recorded finding that Jagdish, the present petitioner, had neglected or refused to maintain his wife Chamchambai and his daughter which was the duty of the trial Court and, therefore, the order which has been passed by the learned trial court is without jurisdiction. Shri Gokhale further argued mat the learned revisional court committed the error of law in maintaining that order without properly considering the evidence on record. He urged that as both the courts have landed in error of law, it is necessary for this Court to invoke the inherent powers in view of S.482 of Cr. P.C. and set aside the order of alimony passed in favour of opponent Chamchambai. 6. Shri Gokhale pointed out that there is evidence on record adduced by the petitioner which proves that petitioner was ever willing and ready to maintain his wife Chamchambai with him but without any reasonable ground, Chamchambai here self left the house of the petitioner, Jagdish by deserting him. He argued that as Chamchambai is residing separately from her husband without sufficient ground, she is not entitled to claim any alimony from him and in respect of that trial court has committed error in granting alimony in her favour and the revisional court has confirmed the order which has been passed by the trial Court. Shri Gokhale made reference to the evidence on record in this context. 7. Shri Gokhale made reference to the evidence on record in this context. 7. Shri Gokhale also argued that if it is the case of opponent Chamchambai that Saraswatibai is a woman with whom Jagdish had remarried, the said marriage should have been established by legal evidence. He also argued that Chamchambai has no right to claim alimony from her husband when she has herself left his house and residing separately from her husband Jagdish. 8. Shri Gokhale also argued that the learned trial court has committed error in granting alimony in favour of wife Chamchambai from the date of application without assigning any reason and, threfore, the said order is illegal. 9. Shri Gokhale further pointed out that in the original application Chamchambai had claimed alimony to the tune of Rs. 300/- but thereafter amended the prayer by adding Rs. 200/- in Sept, 1989 and the trial court has not given due consideration to this aspect. 10. Shri Onkar, counsel for opponent, justified the order of alimony which has been passed in favour of the opponent, Chamchambai and her daughter as correct, proper and legal. He submitted further that the trial court has given the reason for directing present petitioner, Jagdish to pay said alimony to Chamchambai and their daughter from the date of application by pointing out that Jagdish not only neglected both Chamchambai and their daughter but had remarried with Sarswatibai. According to Shri Onkar, learned trial Judge has given the reason for passing the said order and, therefore, there is no illegality in it. 11. Learned trial court has framed Point No. 4 for determination, in which learned trial Judge has passed a question for his answer, whether Chamchambai and her daughter are entitled to get alimony from Jagdish. While answering this question, learned trial Judge has appreciated the evidence on record. He pointed out in his judgment that the evidence of Chamchambai has been corroborated by witnesses namely, Sawant, Gangaram, Badrilal as well as the complaint which was filed by Chamchambai in respect of assault and driving her out of the house, in Compel Outpost Khadai P.S. He has discussed the evidence of these witnesses as well as has considered the voters list in respect of Ward No. 275 of Sawer, pertaining to year 1988 - 1993. Learned trial Judge has also considered the evidence which has been adduced by present petitioner, Jagdish in his defence. Learned trial Judge has also considered the evidence which has been adduced by present petitioner, Jagdish in his defence. Therefore there is no substance in the grievance which has been made on behalf of the present petitioner that the trial court has not recorded a specific finding in respect of neglect or refusal to maintain Chamchambai and her daughter. 12. Revisional court has also considered all relevant evidence in this context for the purpose of coming to the conclusion whether findings recorded by the trial court are correct, and in accordance with the evidence on record. After sufficient discussion, the revisional court has concluded that the findings which have been recorded by the trial court against the present petitioner, Jagdish in respect of his income, his act of neglect and refusal to maintain his wife Chamchambai and daughter are correct, proper and legal. Learned revisional court has after due discussion concluded that there was no legal ground for interference in the finding recorded by the trial court. I do not find anything improper, incorrect and illegal on the part of the trial court and the revisional court in this context. 13. The learned trial court has rightly considered the evidence on record in respect of financial capacity of present petitioner, Jagdish. Evidence on record shows that Jagdish is a man having agricultural land where there is a tube well also. A land having tube well has its own productivity. One can understand very well the financial capacity of such a person. 14. Shri Gokhale further argued that the evidence on record does not prove that present petitioner Jagdish has remarried with Sarswatibai. The evidence of Chamchambai corroborated by the evidence of Sawant, Gangaram, Badrilal abundantly proves that Sarswatibai was residing at the time of decision of the said application as wife of present petitioner Jagdish. Their evidence further shows that some children have been also born out of the their such association. The evidence of Chamchambai corroborated by the evidence of Sawant, Gangaram, Badrilal abundantly proves that Sarswatibai was residing at the time of decision of the said application as wife of present petitioner Jagdish. Their evidence further shows that some children have been also born out of the their such association. When it was the evidence of Chamchambai that Jagdish and remarried Sarswatibai when Chamchambai his duly wedded wife was alive, it was for Jagdish to prove contrary by evidence, but Jagdish has not adduced any evidence in that context Leaving aside legality of the said association in the form of marriage, it is abundantly proved by evidence on record that both Jagdish and Saraswatibai are residing as husband and wife and because of their such association, some children have been conceived and born. 15. Proviso to S.125 of Criminal Procedure Code provides- If such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal; stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation to this provides- If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refusal to live with him. 16. Therefore, if such wife proves that her husband is living with a woman may be one with whom he has contracted a marriage or may be one who has been kept as mistress, such wife discharges her burden of proving her act of refusing to reside with such husband as 'just ground'. If she proves that her husband is residing with such another woman or a mistress, it is for the Magistrate to consider for the purpose of coming to the conclusion whether such woman is having a 'just ground' for refusing the offer made by her husband or not, the Magistrate has to satisfy himself in this context by taking a reasonable approach". 17. In the present case Chamchambai has proved that the association of present petitioner Jagdish with said Saraswatibai is one which is covered by proviso to S.125 Cr. P.C. which has been explained by explanation. 17. In the present case Chamchambai has proved that the association of present petitioner Jagdish with said Saraswatibai is one which is covered by proviso to S.125 Cr. P.C. which has been explained by explanation. Therefore the order which has been passed by the trial court and which has been confirmed by the revisional court will have to be held as correct, proper and legal. 18. Learned advocate, Shri Gokhele submitted that the learned trial court has committed the error of law in granting the alimony in favour of Chamchambai and her daughter from the date of application without giving any reason. Shri Onkar, for opponent, has pointed out that in the last paragraph of the judgment the trial court has given the reason for justifying said order. Learned trial court has pointed out that in the present case Jagdish has not only neglected or refused to maintain Chamchambai and her daughter but has contracted a marriage with Saraswatibai and is residing with her. Provisions of Chapter IX of Cr. P.C. are in the nature of benevolent enactment. Such trials are in the nature of summary trials. These provisions are specially enacted for the purpose of giving protection to weaker sections of the society. These provisions are made for the purpose of protecting such discarded wives and children, who, if not protected by implementation of these provisions of law properly, would be driven to streets for the purpose of seeking sanctuary at the cost of, imperiling their souls and virtues. If those provisions are not properly understood and implemented, these discarded wives and children would be required to go to any extent for the purpose of satisfying their primary needs like food and clothes and shelter. Too much of technicalities are out of the scope of these provisions which are specially mint for protection of such weaker section of the society. Provisions of Chapter IX & S.125 Cr. P.C. do not contemplate detailed reasons for the purpose of passing order directing payment of alimony from the date of application. In the present case the learned trial Judge has rightly held that in this case present petitioner Jagdish has not only neglected or refused to maintain Chamchambai and her daughter but by keeping Saraswatibai in his house as wife aggravated the act of such neglect and refusal to maintain them. In the present case the learned trial Judge has rightly held that in this case present petitioner Jagdish has not only neglected or refused to maintain Chamchambai and her daughter but by keeping Saraswatibai in his house as wife aggravated the act of such neglect and refusal to maintain them. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that after receiving notice, present petitioner Jagdish even did not send money to Chamchambai and her daughter to return to her matrimonial home. It is also pertinent to note here that the evidence of his willingness and readiness to maintain both of them in his house has been discarded by the trial Court and rightly so because it was got up one and devoid of any substance.