Judgment Satya Prakash Pathak, J.-Order dated 18.08.2005 passed by Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case No. 54/2002 -Smt. Chandrakala vs. Sohanlal, granting maintenance @Rs. 1500/-per month to respondent Smt. Chandrakala under Section 125 CrPC, has been challenged in the present petition moved by husband Sohanlal under Section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter for short, as CrPC). 2. Deserted wife Smt. Chandrakala moved an application before the Family Court on 29.04.2005 under Section 125 CrPC stating inter-alia therein that she was married with Sohanlal in the year 1973 according to Hindu custom and rituals. It was alleged therein that her husband used to come home drunken and was beating him, and as no child was born out of the wediock, he used to call her barren and used to tell that he would marry again. It is said that both husband and wife lived in Solan (Himachal Pradesh) form 1975 to 1980 and then came back to the village. In the year 1982, reputed persons were called and before them her husband accepted wrong on his part and promised not to consume liquor and beat the wife. In the year 1990-91, he got job as Driver in Panchayat Samiti, Marwar Junction and thereafter in the year 1997 he developed illicit relations with one Geeta and used to visit her at Pali and on her started spending his entire salary. Geeta was even brought to the house in her presence many a times and on her opposing, her husband used to beat her and tell that he had married with Geeta and thereafter on 31.03.2002 both of them turned her out of the house so she was residing at her brothers house. It was also submitted in the application that she was having no source of income whereas the husband non-applicant was earning salary of Rs. 7,000/-per month. Prayer was made to grant her maintenance @Rs. 3,000/-per month. 3. Sohanlal (petitioner herein) filed reply to the application moved by wife Smt. Chandrakala and denied the allegations of taking liquor and beating the applicant and also denied the allegation of illicit relations with Geeta or turning out the applicant after beating. He came out with the case that he was married with Geeta on 10.01.1981 and stated that the name of Geeta was entered in his service record as a nominee. He came out with the case that he was married with Geeta on 10.01.1981 and stated that the name of Geeta was entered in his service record as a nominee. He accepted his posting as Driver at Marwar Junction and stated that the applicant was married with Shankerlal Chouhan of Sadari and she in order to extract money from him had filed the application. 4. Applicant Smt. Chandrakala, before the Family Court examined herself as PW. 1, and also examined Ganpatlal Parihar (PW. 2), Bhanwari Devi (PW. 3), Anandi Devi (PW. 4) Ishwardas (PW. 5) and Mahendra Kalani (PW. 6). Non-applicant Sohanlal examined himself as NAW. 1, and also examined Bhanwarlal (NAW. 2), Amritlal (NAW. 3), Narayanlal (NAW. 4) and Raghuveer Singh (NAW. 5). 5. The trial Court after hearing both sides found that evidence led by the respondent wife was reliable, therefore, concluded the matter holding that she was entitled to maintain the claim of maintenance. The trial Court further found that by evidence it was established that on account of ill treatment and behaviour of the petitioner husband as he used to take liquor and thereafter used to beat her and also in her presence brought another lady in the house, therefore, she had no option but to live separately with her parents. The trial Court, therefore, allowed the claim petition and ordered monthly maintenance allowance @Rs. 1500/-per month from the date of order passed by the Court. 6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondent was never married to him and she is not the legally wedded wife who can maintain claim for maintenance and in the instant case the petitioner being already a married person prior in time, therefore, the maintenance allowance granted by the trial Court, cannot be said to be illegal, just and proper, therefore, the order impugned requires to be set aside. In support of the submissions, learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Honble Apex Court in Savita Ben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat, 2005 CrLJ (SC) 2141. 7. In support of the submissions, learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Honble Apex Court in Savita Ben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat, 2005 CrLJ (SC) 2141. 7. On the other hand, it has been contended that the respondent wifes marriage took place in the year 1973 with the petitioner and thereafter they lived at various places like Solan, village Jutha and at Pali but after getting a job of Driver and developing relationship with one Geeta, he started harassing her and beating her and ultimately in her presence she was brought home, therefore, she had no option but to go to her parents house. It has also been contended that the learned trial Court on the basis of evidence has reached to the conclusion that the respondent wife was legally wedded wife and there was no issue from their wedlock and that was also a reason for the husband to treat her badly and finally turning her out. It is also submitted that the findings recorded by the trial Court suffers from no infirmity or illegality, therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made before me. 9. In the case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, before the Honble Apex Court wife claimed that she was married to respondent husband in the year 1994 but subsequently she found change in the behavior of the husband as she was being neglected and it was also found on enquiry that respondent developed illicit relation with a lady but during this period of stay she (appellant) became pregnant and gave birth to a child. On being neglected by the husband, she filed a Claim Petition for maintenance. In the written statement, it was stated that she was not the married wife and the respondent husband was already married. The learned Magistrate allowed the claim petition and on revision being filed, the order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to pass appropriate order after affording proper opportunity to both sides. The learned Magistrate, thereafter, allowed the maintenance petition and the revision filed was dismissed. The learned Magistrate allowed the claim petition and on revision being filed, the order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to pass appropriate order after affording proper opportunity to both sides. The learned Magistrate, thereafter, allowed the maintenance petition and the revision filed was dismissed. Special Criminal Appeal filed before the Gujarat High Court also stood dismissed holding that appellant was not legally married wife as on the basis of documents tendered in evidence it was established that respondent was already married person but allowed the maintenance in relation to the child. 10. The Honble Apex Court referred to the case of Nanak Chand vs. Chandra Kishore, AIR 1970 SC 522 , wherein it was observed that the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code give effect to natural and fundamental duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents assuming that they are unable to maintain themselves and the provisions are applicable and enforceable whatever may be the personal law by which the persons concerned are governed. 11. The Honble Apex Court also taken into consideration the case of Dwarka Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyug Prava Dixit & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 3348 , in which it was held that the validity of marriage for the purpose of summary proceedings under Section 125 of the Code is to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties and the standard of proof of marriage in such proceedings is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and if claimant in proceedings under Section 125 succeeds in showing that she and the respondent have lived together as husband and wife, the Court has to presume that they are legally wedded spouses and in such a situation one who denies the marital status can rebut the presumption. 12. The Honble Apex Court further considered the observations made in the case of Yamunabai Anantrao Adav vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhave, AIR 1988 SC 644 . Para 15 of the Judgment reads is under:- "15. 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. Para 15 of the Judgment reads is under:- "15. 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 cannot 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 women 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. 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 once 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. . . .." 13. In the case before the Honble Apex Court, the Court below had found the evidence on record sufficient for recording finding of fact that earlier marriage of respondent was established, therefore, claim of the wife was rejected but the claim of child was not only maintained but the same was enhanced in view of provisions of Section 125 read with Section 127 of the Code. The Honble Court further considered the observations made in the case of Vimla (K) vs. Veeraswamy (K), 1991 (2) SCC 375 , wherein it was observed that when a plea of subsisting marriage is raised by the respondent husband, it has to be satisfactorily proved by tendering evidence to substantiate that he was already married. 14. The Honble Court further considered the observations made in the case of Vimla (K) vs. Veeraswamy (K), 1991 (2) SCC 375 , wherein it was observed that when a plea of subsisting marriage is raised by the respondent husband, it has to be satisfactorily proved by tendering evidence to substantiate that he was already married. 14. In view of settled position of law, now it is to be seen as to whether the learned trial Court has correctly allowed the maintenance petition moved by the respondent wife? 15. In the evidence, the wife as PW. 1 has stated that her marriage took place in the year 1973 with the petitioner according to Hindu rites. Thereafter, they lived as husband and wife in village Jhuta and in the year 1974 both husband and wife went to Himachal Pradesh and in Himachal Pradesh her husband got an employment as a Driver of the jeep of one Shri Dharam Chand. She has also stated that she learnt knitting at Solan. She has tendered in evidence the certificate issued by the training institute at Solan and the documents in relation to bank accounts containing petitioners name as husband. She has stated that her parents were living at Calcutta and Bikaner. She has also stated that her husband sent letters and telegrams to her father addressing him as father-in-law. She has also stated that as no issue was born from their wedlock, therefore, in Bikaner semen of her husband was got tested in a laboratory known as Harsh Laboratory, it is stated that after some time they came to Pali and in the year 1991 her husband got job of a Driver and thereafter they lived for some time together but her husband developed relation with one Geeta and after developing illicit relations, her husband started harassing and maltreating her. She has narrated in the statement the manner in which she was dealt and ultimately thrown out of the house. In the cross-examination, a suggestion has been put to the witness that infect she was not the legally wedded wife but she came in Nata (in some communities it is a marriage). Though in the cross-examination allegations have been made that she had illicit relation with one Gurdev Singh to which she denied. Entire reading of the cross-examination, nowhere suggests that she was making a false allegation. She has stood the test of cross-examination. 16. Though in the cross-examination allegations have been made that she had illicit relation with one Gurdev Singh to which she denied. Entire reading of the cross-examination, nowhere suggests that she was making a false allegation. She has stood the test of cross-examination. 16. PW. 3 Bhanwari Devi is the mother of respondent wife and she has stated about the factum or marriage with the petitioner. 17. PW. 4 is the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the respondent. She has stated that petitioner and respondent were married in the year 1973 and subsequently the respondent started living separately. Not even a single word has been put to the witness in relation to marriage not having taken place in the year 1973. 18. PW. 6 is Mahendra Kalani. He is an independent witness and has stated that petitioner and respondent were husband and wife as both of them attended his marriage while he was posted in Himachal as Conductor. Nothing has been asked from this witness that they never lived as husband and wife in Solan. The only question, which has been put, is about the income of the petitioner. 19. As compared to the evidence led by the respondent wife, the petitioner in his statement has stated that the respondent was never married to him but she had lived with him for a year. He has also stated that he got married with one Smt. Geeta. They had no issue and he took subsequently one boy in adoption. It is also stated that the respondent after living with him for one year left him. In the cross-examination, he has admitted the fact that he remained at Solan for three years. He has also admitted that Chandrakala was with him, however, stated that she left him subsequently. He has denied that the letters were written by him. Other witnessess, viz., Bhanwarlal is the brothers-in-law of the petitioner, Amirtlal is in relation of petitioner. Another witness examined on behalf of the petitioner namely Narayanlal is a main witness. This witness has clarified the position as regards the factual aspect of the case. This witness has stated that his sister is Geeta, who got married with petitioner in the year 1981. He has also stated that they took one child in adoption. He has denied about the fact in the cross-examination that in the year 1973 respondent got married to the petitioner. 20. This witness has stated that his sister is Geeta, who got married with petitioner in the year 1981. He has also stated that they took one child in adoption. He has denied about the fact in the cross-examination that in the year 1973 respondent got married to the petitioner. 20. After carefully examining the above evidence and also after carefully examining the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, it appears that the learned Judge has properly appreciated the evidence because the respondent wife by her evidence has clearly established that in the year 1973 their marriage took place and no child was born from their wedlock and that was the reason that is why the husband was not happy. Both of them lived at several places, namely Jutha village in Bikaner, Solan in Himachal etc. and there are proofs of bank accounts and letters and telegrams. The brother of the second wife Geeta has stated that in the year 1981 Geetas marriage took place with the petitioner. 21. On the basis of above evidence, there remains no doubt that respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner because in the cross-examination a suggestion has been put to the respondent wife that there was a Nata marriage. Therefore, the factum of marriage could not be denied. The respondent himself has also admitted that both of them have lived together for a year or so but not as husband and wife. Simply by making averments in the statement, the factum of earlier marriage as claimed by the husband petitioner cannot be believed. Therefore, the factum of marriage could not be denied. The respondent himself has also admitted that both of them have lived together for a year or so but not as husband and wife. Simply by making averments in the statement, the factum of earlier marriage as claimed by the husband petitioner cannot be believed. The authority, which has been cited on behalf of the petitioner, is of no help to the petitioner but on the contrary it helps the respondent because what has been observed in the case of Smt. Yamunabai (Supra) is that a subsequent marriage is null and void and not voidable and in the instant case, from the facts which prima facie establish that respondent got married as early as in the year 1973 or there was Nata marriage, whatever it may be, but the fact remains that they lived as husband and wife for years together, then, in the absence of required proof that respondent is not a legally wedded wife of petitioner, till then for the purposes of proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC, the evidence, which has been led by the respondent wife, is sufficient to hold that her husband neglected her, therefore, she started living separately with her parents and filed a petition for maintenance. The learned Judge, Family Court, has given cogent reasons for the same and while discussing the evidence has also reached to the conclusion that the respondent being wife of the petitioner was entitled to claim maintenance. 22. In view of above discussion, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned Judgment passed by the Judge, Family Court, which may require interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. There appears no merit in the revision petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 23. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.