Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2704 (MAD)

S. Venkatesan v. Maheswari

2006-10-11

R.REGUPATHI

body2006
Judgment : Per R. REGUPATHI, J. 1. The petition for maintenance has been filed by the wife and the two children. The learned Magistrate, after conducting enquiry, awarded maintenance at the rate of Rsz. 600/- for the wife and Rs. 500/- each for the two children. 2. Aggrieved against that, a revision had been field before the Appellate Forum and the same was dismissed. Subsequently, the present petition has been filed before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that the first respondent/wife is the second wife of the petitioner. The first respondent married the petitioner knowingly that the petitioner is living with the first wife. Under such circumstances, the marriage of the petitioner with the first respondent has to be treated as a void marriage and she cannot be construed as a wife at all and she is not entitled for maintenance. 4. It is further submitted that at the time when the petitioner was living with the first respondent, a property has been purchased and registered in her name. Moreover, the petitioner is working as an attender and earning a meagre salary. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is erroneous and at any rate, the amount ordered to be paid is also unreasonable. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that after obtaining permission from the first wife, as she was sick, the second marriage was performed for the purpose of looking after the children of the first wife. When the petitioner was living with the first respondent, two children were also born to the petitioner. 6. I have perused the materials available on record and submissions made. In a case Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga AIR 2005 SC 422 , : (2005) 2 SCC 33 : 2005 (1) LW 758 it has been held that permanent alimony and maintenance can be granted, even though, the marriage of a spouse has been declared null and void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1952. Under such circumstances, it cannot be construed that the marriage of the first petitioner is void. Moreover, though the order has been passed on 19.5.2003, nothing has been paid to the respondent till today, in view of the stay granted by this Court. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was living with the first respondent and has given birth to two children. Under such circumstances, it cannot be construed that the marriage of the first petitioner is void. Moreover, though the order has been passed on 19.5.2003, nothing has been paid to the respondent till today, in view of the stay granted by this Court. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was living with the first respondent and has given birth to two children. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after giving sufficient opportunity, has come to the conclusion and ordered maintenance of the amount aforementioned. In the revision, it has been confirmed by the lower appellate Court. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though there is a specific bar prohibiting the second revision petition indirectly under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I do not find any merit in this petition and accordingly, the petition is dismissed.