JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. As both the revisions, titled above, arise out of the same judgment dated 20.11.2013 rendered by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, hence are being adjudicated together hereinbelow. 2. By the impugned judgment, Rs.8,000/- per month was awarded towards the maintenance of Master Varun, who was proved to be the biological/illegitimate son out of the spousal relations of Ghanshyam and Ms. Annu. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court has denied maintenance to the wife on the ground that she could not prove herself to be the legally wedded wife by way of performance of rituals viz. circumambulation, as envisaged under the Hindu Marriage Act. But the fact cannot be denied that since Master Varun, by way of DNA Test, was found to be the son of Ghanshyam, hence he (Ghanshyam) was having the spousal relations with Ms. Annu. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the husband that Ms. Annu is not his legally wedded wife, is unsustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and another’ (2014) 1 SCC 188 . In that case too, the husband had duped the second wife by not revealing her the fact of his earlier marriage. So, the Apex Court was of the view that Section 125 Cr.P.C. should be given the purposive construction because where there are possibilities of two constructions, then the duty of the Court, in such cases, was to give effect to that construction which will be responsible for smooth functioning of the system for which the statute has been enacted. It was further held that the construction which would reduce the legislation to a futility should be avoided. The husband cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong by raising the aforesaid contentions. Hence, giving the purposive construction to the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C., the said woman would also be treated as a legally wedded wife. 4. In the case in hand, the husband is a Government Servant and the wife has averred his income as Rs.30,000/- per month at least two years ago and as of now, his income may not be less than Rs.35,000/- per mensem. 5. The Court feels that grant of maintenance to Master Varun to the tune of Rs.8,000/- per month was on higher side. 5. The Court feels that grant of maintenance to Master Varun to the tune of Rs.8,000/- per month was on higher side. Thus, having regard to the entire facts of the case, the Court hereby awards Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance for the maintenance of Ms. Annu and Master Varun both. The awarding of this maintenance would be considered to be due from the date of order i.e. 20.11.2013. 6. At the same time, the Court cannot oversight the fact that the application seeking maintenance by Ms. Annu was pending since 2003 and for any reason, the same could not be adjudicated by the Trial Court within a reasonable time. It is thus, directed that Ms. Annu would also be entitled to claim the maintenance from the date of moving application i.e. 14.10.2003 by her, till the date of order i.e. 20.11.2013 @ Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand per month). The entire arrears of maintenance would be reckoned and paid to Ms. Annu by the Drawing and Disbursing Authority of the revisionist-husband Ghanshyam in reasonable installments to be settled by him. 7. Subject to the above directions, the revision preferred by the husband Ghanshyam (CRLR No.357/2013) is dismissed, and at the same time, the revision preferred by Ms. Annu (CRLR 27/2014) is disposed of. Interim order dated 2.1.2014 granted in CRLR No.357/2013 is vacated accordingly.