Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the parties. (2). This criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 27th February, 1996 in criminal revision No. 45/95 Makhan Singh vs. Bant Kaur whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the order passed by the learned Judicial Magis-trate, Ghadsana, by which interim maintenance allowance was granted to the non-petitioner Smt. Bant Kaur. (3). The amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate was, however, reduced to Rs. 400/- to 300/-. (4). Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional SessionsJudge the petitioner Makhan Singh has approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (5). The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the averments made by the non-petitioner Bant Kaur, in the petition as well as in the affidavits that she is the married wife of the petitioner Makhan Singh, is taken astrue, the non- petitioner is not entitled to be called a legally married wife of the petitioner because the petitioner had already solmnised his first marriage with Smt. Angrej Kaur and that marriage is subsisting and according to the Hindu Marriage Act neither spouse can contract a second marriage during the period of first marriage subsists. (6). In order to support the allegation that the petitioner Makhan Singh solmnised his first marriage with Smt. Angrej Kaur the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the averments made in the reply filed by the non-petitioner in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate. A perusal of the record of the lower Court shows that on 28th June, 1995 Makhan Singh filed the reply of the appli-cation for grant of interim maintenance allowance. In Para No.2 of that application he admitted his marriage with the non-petitioner Smt. Bant Kaur. On 22nd August, 1995 he filed the reply of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in that reply, he denied his marriage with the non-petitioner Smt. Bant Kaur and further stated that in the first information report lodged by Kant Kaur alleging the commission of offen-ces under Sections 498-A and 496 I.P.C. Bant Kaur had stated that the petitioner was already married. In Para No.14 of the reply the petitioner alleged that his first marriage was solmnised with Smt. Angrej Kaur D/o Jeet Singh on 26th January, 1994. In Para No.14 of the reply the petitioner alleged that his first marriage was solmnised with Smt. Angrej Kaur D/o Jeet Singh on 26th January, 1994. It appears that the affidavit of Jeet Singh and Smt. Angrej Kaur were also filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate and invitation card of the marriage was alsoproduced. (7). The learned Judicial Magistrate has taken into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner Makhan Singh and on the basis of that reply as well as the allegations made by the non- petitioner in her application he found prima facie case for granting interim maintenance allowance. (8). In revision the learned Additional Sessions Judge took into considerationthe admission made by the petitioner Makhan Singh in his reply and on the basis of that admission came to the conclusion that Smt. Bant Kaur was legally wedded wife of Makhan Singh. (9). At this stage for want of sufficient evidence on record it is not possible to finally decide the disputed question of fact. Suffice it to say that the two replies filedby the petitioner Makhan Singh contained inconsistent stands because in the reply dated 28th June, 1995 Makhan Singh had admitted his marriage with Smt. Bant Kaur but the reply filed on 22nd August, 1995 he denied his marriage with Smt. Bant Kaur. Both the assertions cannot be true. One of them must be false. (10). Those who feel that they have got a license to make false submissionabout facts, either for establishing their right or for defending themselves are mistaken. Nobody has a licensee to make any false representation before any Court. It has been pointed out in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs.Jagannath (1) : ``The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean heands. We are constrained to say that, more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax- evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. (11). Property-grabbers, tax- evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. (11). In the instant case the pleas taken by the petitioner Makhan Singh appears to be so inconsistent as to justify conclusion that one of them must be false. In view of this it is difficult to hold that his assertion that he had solemnised his firstmarriage with Smt. Angrej Kaur is entitled to be taken as correct on face value. In this view of the matter the learned Judicial Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge appeared to be justified in their conclusions that the non- petitioner Smt. Bant Kaur is prima facie the legally married wife of the petitioner, in view of the admission made by the petitioner in Para No.2 of his reply dated 28th June,1995. The conclusions drawn by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge are not final. The parties have yet to produce their evidence for the purpose of proving their respective cases. (12). For reasons mentioned above there does not appear to be any justification for interfering in the interim orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrateand the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the revision petition. The interim maintenance allowance granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not appear to be unjust or excessive having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. (13). For reasons mentioned above this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. hasno force. It deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to expedite the hearing of the petition filed by Smt. Bant Kaur under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Since the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge in impugned order are not intended to be final order, the learned Magistrate is expected to decide the question of fact arising before him without being influen- ced by the observations.At the same time it is expected that the parties to the case will abstain from setting up their cases on the grains of falsehood. If inspite of this they persist in raising their cases on falsehood the learned Judicial Magistrate will be at liberty to act in accordance with the observation of Honble Apex Court.