Judgment S.S.Sudhalkar, J. 1. These criminal revision petitions have been filed by the two accused who have been convicted in the same case. The appeals filed by the accused were also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. These two petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Petitioner Santosh was convicted for the offence under section 494 of the I.P.C. and petitioner Jagbir Singh was convicted for the offence under section 494 read with section 109 of the I.P.C. Both of them have been awarded sentence of R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.1000/- each. 3. After hearing the learned District Attorney, I find that there is no reason for disturb the finding of the trial court as well as of the lower Appellate Court by which the offence has been held to have been proved against the petitioners. 4. The question now remains is whether the punishment should be upheld or reduced. 5. As is clear from the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court, the complainant, who was the husband of Santosh, had already obtained a decree for divorce on 28.8.1981. The alleged marriage of the petitioners had taken place before the decree of divorce. However, as mentioned earlier, the complainant already obtained a decree for divorce. It is also on record that a child was born to petitioner Santosh from petitioner Jagbir Singh. Considering this position, I find that it will not be proper to sent the petitioners to jail, I, however, find that there is no reason to reduce the fine that has been imposed on the petitioners. 6. In view of the punishment provided under section 494 of the I.P.C., I uphold the fine awarded to the petitioners, however, reduce their sentences to S.I. for one day till the rising of the Court. If the petitioners have undergone any sentence that shall be taken into consideration as per section 428 of the Cr.P.C. 7. These revision petitions stand allowed to the above extent. Petitions allowed.