Judgment ( 1. ) THE applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order dated 17-7-2001 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore, in Criminal Revision No. 167 of 1999, whereby the order dated 3-8-1999 granting maintenance to non-applicants passed in Misc. Cr. Case No. 60 of 1998 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sehore, was confirmed. ( 2. ) IN short, the facts of the case are that non-applicant No. 1 Fulkunwar Bai, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, claiming maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month for her from the applicant. According to Fulkunwar Bai, she was married to the applicant by way of Natra as per the prevailing customs. She had gone to the house of the applicant and lived with him for a short period but when the applicant started consuming liquor and beating and harassing her under intoxication, she left his house and alongwith his brother went to her brothers house. After some time the applicant brought her back but because of some differences and without any sufficient cause abandoned her. Despite notices given by her, he did not turn up and did not take her with him. It was said that her husband Gajrajs income from the agriculture was Rs. 1,00,000/- per year and he also earned about Rs. 2,500/- per month by labour work. She also claimed that while living with Gajraj she conceived and in due course gave birth to a son viz. , Liladhar, non-applicant No. 2. ( 3. ) THE claim of the non-applicants was controverted by the applicant. He refuted the allegations made against him. He denied that under spell of liquor he manhandled or abused the non-applicant, In his reply, he specifically asserted that the non-applicant No. 1 was already married and without obtaining divorce from her previous husband, she had come to his house alongwith her father and brother. H stated that at the time of alleged Natra it was represented by Fulkunwars father that the divorce had been obtained, but, he came to know, on inquiry, that the non-applicant had not obtained the divorce from her previous husband. Hence, he did not agree to keep the non-applicant with him. H stated that at the time of alleged Natra it was represented by Fulkunwars father that the divorce had been obtained, but, he came to know, on inquiry, that the non-applicant had not obtained the divorce from her previous husband. Hence, he did not agree to keep the non-applicant with him. In the aforesaid circumstances, he denied his liability to pay the maintenance to her and also to non-applicant No. 2, Liladhar, who, according to him, was not his son. ( 4. ) IN her evidence before the Trial Court, Fulkunwar Bai deposed that she had gone to the house of the applicant after duly performing the ceremony of Natra in the presence of a number of people and by execution of a Chhod-Chhutti Panchayatnama she had left her husband to whom she had been married 3-4 years ago and who was alive at the time of Natra and was living at Sehore. She disclosed that her previous husbands name was Mohan Singh. Another witness Ramesh (P. W. 2), examined from the side of the non-applicant, also deposed that Fulkunwar was married to applicant in the customary manner of Natra. Similar statement was made by Kailash (P. W. 3), who happened to be the brother of Fulkunwar Bai. These witnesses in their cross-examination admitted that Fulkunwar Bai was earlier married to Mohan Singh, but that marriage was broken and there was a divorce in the customary way before the Panchayat of their community though they had no papers with respect to the alleged divorce. ( 5. ) APPLICANT, Gajraj, in his reply and in his evidence stated that he was not married to Fulkunwar, however, her father had brought her to his house for Natra. He was also married earlier but his wife had died. He stated that Fulkunwar and her father had told him that they would handover the paper of divorce which was obtained by her from her previous husband, but whenever he inquired about the paper of divorce, on one pretext or the other it was not supplied to him. He also stated that he had never harassed Fulkunwar Bai and the allegations about subjecting her to cruelty were all false. He further stated that Fulkunwar Bai had never informed her about her pregnancy. ( 6. He also stated that he had never harassed Fulkunwar Bai and the allegations about subjecting her to cruelty were all false. He further stated that Fulkunwar Bai had never informed her about her pregnancy. ( 6. ) AFTER considering the evidence adduced by both the parties and the fact that the applicant had admitted that he was keeping Fulkunwar as his wife, the learned Magistrate held that the applicant was liable to pay maintenance to her and the minor son and accordingly awarded Rs. 750/- per month as maintenance to her and Rs. 250/- per month to the minor son. ( 7. ) THE revision preferred against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by the First Addl. Sessions Judge, Sehore, holding that since in accordance with the prevailing customs when there was Chhod-chhutti between the two parties, it could not be said that there was no divorce and when it was admitted by the applicant that he had accepted Fulkunwar as his wife it was proved that Fulkunwar was wife of applicant. It was held that on the basis of the evidence it was proved that the parties were married by way of Natra and as such the non-applicant being the wife in terms of Section 125, Cr. PC was entitled to get maintenance from the applicant. ( 8. ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid orders passed by the Courts below, husband Gajraj Singh has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. PC. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that it is admitted position in the present case that, at the time when Natra between him and the non-applicant was performed, her previous husband Mohan Singh was alive and that the marriage having had not been dissolved by decree of divorce by a Competent Court, the non-applicant was not entitled for maintenance and the said Natra could not be termed as valid marriage. It was further submitted that since no valid marriage was existing between the applicant and non-applicant No. 1, the non-applicant was not entitled to get any amount by way of maintenance from the applicant. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, 2005 (2) M. P. H. T. 382 (SC) : 2005 (II) WN 15, wherein the same question has been examined in detail. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, 2005 (2) M. P. H. T. 382 (SC) : 2005 (II) WN 15, wherein the same question has been examined in detail. It has been considered by the Apex Court that: In Smt. Yamunabais case (supra), it was held that expression wife used in Section 125 of the Code should be interpreted to mean only a legally wedded wife. The word wife is not defined in the Code except indicating in the Explanation to Section 125 its inclusive character so as to cover a divorcee. A woman can not be a divorcee unless there was a marriage in the eye of law preceding that status. The expression must therefore be given the meaning in which it is understood in law applicable to the parties. The marriage of a woman in accordance with the Hindu rites with a man having a living spouse is a complete nullity in the eye of law and she is therefore not entitled to the benefit of Section 125 of the Code or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the Marriage Act ). Marriage with person having living spouse is null and void and not voidable. However, the attempt to exclude altogether the personal law applicable to the parties from consideration is improper. Section 125 of the Code has been enacted in the interest of a wife and one who intends to take benefit under sub-section (1) (a) has to establish the necessary condition, namely, that she is the wife of the person concerned. The issue can be decided only by a reference to the law applicable to the parties. It is only where an applicant establishes such status or relationship with reference to the personal law that an application for maintenance can be maintained. Once the right under the provision in Section 125 of the Code is established by proof of necessary conditions mentioned therein, it can not be defeated by further reference to the personal law. The issue whether the Section is attracted or not can not be answered except by reference to the appropriate law governing the parties. But it does not further the case of the appellant in the instant case. The issue whether the Section is attracted or not can not be answered except by reference to the appropriate law governing the parties. But it does not further the case of the appellant in the instant case. Even if it is accepted as stated by learned Counsel for the appellant that husband was treating her as his wife it is really inconsequential. It is the intention of the legislature which is relevant and not the attitude of the party. In Smt. Yamunabai s case (supra) plea similar to the one advanced in the present case that the appellant was not informed about the respondents earlier marriage when she married him was held to be of no avail. The principle of estoppel can not be pressed into service to defeat the provision of Section 125 of the Code. It may be noted at this juncture that the legislature considered it necessary to include within the scope of the provision an illegitimate child but it has not done so with respect to woman not lawfully married. However, desirable it may be, as contended by learned Counsel for the appellant to take note of the plight of the unfortunate woman, the legislative intent being clearly reflected in Section 125 of the Code, there is no scope for enlarging its scope by introducing any artificial definition to include woman not lawfully married in the expression wife. ( 9. ) FROM the evidence on record, it emerges out clearly that the alleged marriage of Fulkunwar with her previous husband had not been legally dissolved and, hence, by the alleged Natra she did not acquire the status of wife in terms of Section 125, Cr. PC. This is evident from the aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court. Naturally, her application for maintenance so far as her own claim is concerned is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ( 10. ) THE impugned order passed by the Court below with respect to the claim of Fulkunwar, being against the proposition laid down by the Apex Court, is set aside. However, the order of granting maintenance to the non-applicant No. 2 Liladhar, in the circumstances of the case, stands unaffected. ( 11. ) ACCORDINGLY, the present application of the applicant is partly allowed. The impugned order to the extent it relates to grant of maintenance to the non-applicant No. 1 is set aside.