JUDGEMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioner has assailed order dated 19.6.2004 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Criminal Revision Petition No. 19-Cr.R./10 of 2003 setting aside order dated 28.10.2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Maintenance Petition No. 4/4 of 2003. 2. The facts in brief are that petitioner had filed a petition for grant of maintenance at the rate of ‘ 3,000/- per month against the respondent claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent. It has been alleged that marriage between the parties was solemnized 20 years ago according to Hindu rites. They lived together but in the year 1999 respondent married one Dwarka Devi and turned the petitioner out of his house. The petitioner for some time lived with her brother but in the year 2001 she left his house and started living at Nahan, doing some menial work. It has been alleged that she is a patient of arthritis unable to maintain herself. The respondent is in government job and earning ! 5,000/- per month. The petitioner has claimed maintenance of ! 3,000/- per month from the respondent. 3. The respondent denied that petitioner is his wife. He has asserted that real name of petitioner is Surmi daughter of Kanshi Ram. He stated that Dwarka Devi is his only legally wedded wife. The petitioner was married to one Nain Singh. A son was born to her from Nain Singh. The petitioner deserted Nain Singh and settled with one Khumbia, but again returned to Nain Singh. The petitioner again left Nain Singh and settled with one Tulsi Ram. She had gone to Kala Amb and had been living there for the last 2-3 years. Only last year she came to Nahan. The petitioner never married to respondent, therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance from him. There is no question of neglect to maintain the petitioner by respondent. 4. The following points emerged for determination:- 1. Whether petitioner has proved that she is legally wedded wife of the respondent? 2. If point No.(1) is proved, what amount the petitioner is entitled to as monthly maintenance allowance ?3.Final order. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate answered point No.1 in affirmative, under point No.2, held that petitioner is entitled to ! 1,000/- per month maintenance, under point No.3 awarded ! 2. If point No.(1) is proved, what amount the petitioner is entitled to as monthly maintenance allowance ?3.Final order. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate answered point No.1 in affirmative, under point No.2, held that petitioner is entitled to ! 1,000/- per month maintenance, under point No.3 awarded ! 1,000/- per month maintenance to the petitioner from the date of institution of the petition i.e. 23.4.2003 on 28.10.2003. In revision filed by the respondent, learned Sessions Judge has held that petitioner has not discharged the onus that she is legally wedded wife of respondent. In addition, it has been held that petitioner is not living with respondent, she re-married Nain Singh after 10 years of her previous marriage where he gave birth to a son. Thus, petitioner would be deemed to have refused to live with respondent without any sufficient reason and, therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance. The learned Sessions Judge has further held that petitioner is living with Nain Singh and gave birth to one Mohinder Singh, she would be deemed to be living in adultery. The learned Sessions Judge on 19.6.2004 accepted the revision and set-aside the order dated 28.10.2003 allowing maintenance to the petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. PW-1 Smt. Vijaya Devi has stated that she married to respondent 20 years back and lived with him. The respondent has solemnized another marriage with Dwarka Devi 5-6 years ago. After three months of his marriage with Dwarka Devi, respondent turned her out from matrimonial home. She is unable to maintain herself and she is not maintaining good health due to illness. The respondent is employed in PWD and is earning ! 6,000/- per month. He has landed property also from where income is ! 5,000/- -! 6,000/-. She demanded maintenance at the rate of ! 3,000/- per month. 6. In cross-examination, she has admitted that she was married to Nain Singh and from that marriage Mohinder Singh was born. On behalf of the respondent a positive suggestion has been given to petitioner that she left Nain Singh. She denied that thereafter she got married with some other person. She denied that she re­married with Nain Singh. She denied that thereafter she married with one Tulsi Ram. She has stated that she was married with Nain Singh after 10 years. On behalf of the respondent a positive suggestion has been given to petitioner that she left Nain Singh. She denied that thereafter she got married with some other person. She denied that she re­married with Nain Singh. She denied that thereafter she married with one Tulsi Ram. She has stated that she was married with Nain Singh after 10 years. She denied that she was never married with respondent. She denied that she remained with Nain Singh as wife till the year 1998. 7. PW-2 Bhagat Ram, Panchayat Secretary on the basis of record has stated that in the Register at page No. 30 Naiya Ram and Vijaya Devi alias Surmi Devi married on 15.8.1982 has been shown. This information was given to him by Naiya Ram on 22.8.1982. The Register is signed by Naiya Ram, the copy of such entry is Ex.P-1. He has brought family register also and at page No. 119 Vijaya Devi alias Surmi has been shown as wife of Naiya Ram. This entry has been struck off, the relevant entry is Ex.P-2. In cross-examination, he has stated that he is posted in Gram Panchayat, Jarag since April, 1997. He has proved certificate Ex.P-1. 8. PW-3 Jainder Singh, Election Kanungo has stated that at serial No. 162 Surmo Devi has been shown as wife of Naiya Ram in voter list Ex.P-3 of the year 1990. PW-4 Budho Devi has stated that she knew Surmi wife of Naiya Ram. She got married 20-21 years ago, after marriage she lived with respondent. In cross-examination, she denied that Surmi Devi was married with Nain Singh. 9. RW-1 Naiya Ram has stated that he never married with Vijaya Devi. Vijaya Devi got married with Nain Singh. She left Nain Singh and lived with other persons. In cross-examination, he denied that he got married with petitioner on 15.8.1982. He denied that he gave the report of his marriage with petitioner to the Panchayat. He has stated that on his arm name of Surmi Devi has been tattooed but that is not petitioner. He has said that he does not know that in Ex.P-3 the name of Surmi Devi has not been included, volunteered Surmi had left his house 8 years ago. He does not know who was that Surmi. RW-2 Surat Ram has stated that Naiya Ram is married with Dwarka Devi. He has said that he does not know that in Ex.P-3 the name of Surmi Devi has not been included, volunteered Surmi had left his house 8 years ago. He does not know who was that Surmi. RW-2 Surat Ram has stated that Naiya Ram is married with Dwarka Devi. In cross-examination, he has denied that petitioner got married with respondent on 15.8.1982. 10. Ex.P-1 is the Marriage (Registration) Register indicating entry dated 15.8.1982 showing that Naiya Ram and Smt. Vijaya Devi got married on 15.8.1982. The signatures of Naiya Ram are on the Register against the relevant entry. Ex.P-2 is the copy of Pariwar Register Part-I where in the family of Naiya Ram name of Vijaya Devi has been shown but entry has been struck off with remarks that she has settled in other house. In this very entry Dwarka Devi has been shown as wife of Naiya Ram. Ex.P-3 is the copy of voter list for the year 1990 where Surmo has been shown wife of Naiya Ram. Ex.R-1 is the copy of Pariwar Register of Naiya Ram showing Dwarka Devi wife of Naiya Ram. In Ex.R-1 the name of petitioner has not been shown in the family of Naiya Ram. 11. The respondent has totally denied his marriage with petitioner. He has taken the defence that petitioner got married with Nain Singh, left him settled with several other persons, again settled with Nain Singh. The respondent has admitted that Dwarka Devi is his wife from whom he has children. The statement of PW-1 Vijaya Devi was recorded on 21.8.2003. She has stated that she got married with respondent 20 years ago. She denied that during this period she married with Nain Singh. She has however, admitted that at one point of time she was married with Nain Singh and gave birth to Mohinder Singh. But there is no material on record that after her marriage with respondent she married with Nain Singh. The respondent cannot take the benefit of vague statement of petitioner that she married with Nain Sigh after 10 years. The respondent did not clarify from petitioner the 10 years period stated by her in cross-examination and those 10 years referred to which period. 12. There is enough material on record to show that petitioner got married with the respondent. The respondent cannot take the benefit of vague statement of petitioner that she married with Nain Sigh after 10 years. The respondent did not clarify from petitioner the 10 years period stated by her in cross-examination and those 10 years referred to which period. 12. There is enough material on record to show that petitioner got married with the respondent. In addition to petitioner PW-4 Smt. Budho Devi has stated that after the marriage of petitioner with Naiya Ram, she lived with respondent. In Ex.P-1 Marriage (Registration) Register petitioner and respondent are shown to have married on 15.8.1982, the information of marriage of petitioner and respondent was given by none else but by respondent which has been clearly mentioned in Ex.P-1. In Ex.P-2 Family Register Part-I, the petitioner has been shown wife of respondent but this entry has been scored off with remarks that she has settled in another home. The settlement in other home is secondary but Ex.P-2 establishes that petitioner and respondent remained as husband and wife. In Ex.P-3 petitioner has been shown wife of respondent in the year 1990. The divorce between petitioner and respondent has not been proved, nor it is the case of respondent he divorced petitioner at any time. 13. RW-1 Naiya Ram has stated that petitioner got married with Nain Singh but he has not stated when she got married with Nain Singh. The petitioner has not concealed anything. She has admitted that at one point of time, she was married with Nain Singh. It is the case of RW-1 that petitioner left Nain Singh. It appears thereafter petitioner got married with respondent. In his examination in chief the respondent has not stated that petitioner after leaving Nain Singh remarried /resettled with Nain Singh after some time. The respondent has admitted that name of Surmi Devi is tattooed on his arm. The respondent has also added that this Surmi Devi is someone else. But who is that Surmi Devi, he has not explained. 14. It is admitted case of the parties that name of Vijaya Devi is Surmi Devi. The tattooed name of Surmi Devi on the arm of respondent is very strong piece of evidence that said Surmi Devi is none else but the petitioner. The respondent in his statement has also stated that Surmi Devi had left his house 8 years ago. It is admitted case of the parties that name of Vijaya Devi is Surmi Devi. The tattooed name of Surmi Devi on the arm of respondent is very strong piece of evidence that said Surmi Devi is none else but the petitioner. The respondent in his statement has also stated that Surmi Devi had left his house 8 years ago. In case Surmi Devi had left the house of the respondent 8 years ago as stated by him then in what capacity Surmi Devi was living with him in his house that has not been explained by him. This establishes the case of the petitioner that after the marriage of respondent with Dwarka Devi, he turned out the petitioner. Thus, it has been proved on record that petitioner and respondent are married but during the subsistence of marriage between respondent and petitioner, the respondent married with Dwarka Devi. The petitioner is justified not to live with the respondent in presence of performance of second marriage by the respondent with Dwarka Devi during the subsistence of marriage of petitioner with respondent. 15. The petitioner has stated that she has no source of income and is unable to maintain herself. She is not keeping good health. The respondent is employed in PWD and earns ! 6,000/- per month from service and in addition he has income from landed property. The evidence of income of respondent has not been rebutted by respondent by adducing legally admissible evidence. It has thus been proved that petitioner has no source of income to maintain herself. On the contrary, the respondent has sufficient means to maintain the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge misconstrued, misinterpreted the evidence on record in returning the finding that petitioner is not married with respondent. She is living with another person and is guilty of adultery. 16. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge does not emerge from the evidence on record. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has properly appreciated the evidence on record and awarded maintenance ! 1,000/- per month to the petitioner against the respondent from the date of filing of the petition. 16. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge does not emerge from the evidence on record. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has properly appreciated the evidence on record and awarded maintenance ! 1,000/- per month to the petitioner against the respondent from the date of filing of the petition. In Krishnan and another vs. Krishnaveni and another (1997) 4 SCC 241, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- “with Section 401, upon the High Court is to invest continuous supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to mete out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised revisional power under Section 397(1). However, when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order.” 17. In view of above, the petition is allowed, order dated 19.6.2004 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Criminal Revision Petition No. 19-Cr.R./10 of 2003 is set- aside and order dated 28.10.2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Maintenance Petition No. 4/4 of 2003 is restored with no order as to costs.