ORDER 1. The case is posted for consideration I.A.No. 2657 of 2015 for grant of stay on further proceedings in the matter before the trial Court. 2. However, the respondent is represented, and there is sufficient material before the Court; therefore, in view of the fact that only an order of interim maintenance is under challenge, the matter is heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. This criminal revision is directed against order dated 5.1.2015, passed by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chhindwara, in Case No. 88 of 2014, whereby learned trial Court has directed the revision petitioner husband to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- to respondent No.1 Kamini and Rs.1500/- per month to respondent No.2 Kuldeepak till the disposal of aforesaid case by way of interim maintenance. 4. The case of respondent wife before the trial Court was that she is legally wedded wife of revision petitioner. Their marriage was solemnized 12.3.2013 by Hindu rites. A son named Kuldeepak, was born within the wedlock. Subsequently, revision petitioner re-married a girl named Meena and is refusing to maintain the respondents. He is an advocate and has sufficient means to maintain the respondents; therefore, a sum of Rs.25000/- per month was demanded by way of interim maintenance. 5. The revision petitioner refuted the relationship and stated that he never married the respondent. Respondent Kuldeepak is not his son. He is advocate only in the name. He is no more in active practice and is dependent upon his legally wedded wife Meena and is living with her at Jabalpur; therefore, it was prayed that the application be dismissed. 6. Learned trial Court after hearing the parties held that DNA test was conducted, whereby it has been established that respondent Kuldeepak is biological son of revision petitioner- Ravishankar and respondent No.1-Kamini. Moreover, learned trial Court relying upon five photographs of the marriage, Barat procession and reception, held prima facie that the revision petitioner and respondent no. 1 had a relationship in the nature of marriage and had lived together as husband and wife. Learned trial Court did not believe that the revision petitioner is no longer in active practice and estimated his income from advocacy to be R.10,000/- per month and directed him to pay interim maintenance as aforesaid. 7. 1 had a relationship in the nature of marriage and had lived together as husband and wife. Learned trial Court did not believe that the revision petitioner is no longer in active practice and estimated his income from advocacy to be R.10,000/- per month and directed him to pay interim maintenance as aforesaid. 7. The prima facie findings recorded by the learned trial Court for the purposes of fixing interim maintenance, have been assailed on behalf of the revision petitioner before this Court mainly on the grounds that learned trial Court completely ignored the fact that the respondent- Kamini is legally wedded wife of one Ashish Chourasiya. She had filed a private complaint under section 6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act so also an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the aforesaid Ashish Chourasiya in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Chhindwara wherein, learned JMFC, Chhindwara had directed aforesaid Ashish on 30th April, 2009 to pay maintenance to respondent Kamini @ Rs.1700/- per month. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the respondent, during her evidence in the case has admitted that no decree of divorce was passed by a competent Court dissolving her marriage Ashish Chourasiya. As such, her alleged marriage with revision petitioner Ravishankar during the life time of Ashish Chourasiya, is void. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has further invited attention of the Court to order dated 15.4.2014 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the application of respondent No.1 for interim maintenance was rejected on aforesaid grounds. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, has supported the impugned order and reasoning adopted by learned trial Court. On perusal of the documents available on record and due consideration of rival contentions, this Court is of the view that this revision petition must succeed for the reasons hereinafter stated : 9. True it is that five photographs of the marriage, Barat procession and reception of revision petitioner Ravishankar and respondent No.1- Kamini and the DNA test report indicates that that the revision petitioner and respondent No. 1 lived as husband and wife and procreated son Kuldeepak, respondent No.2. 10. True it is that five photographs of the marriage, Barat procession and reception of revision petitioner Ravishankar and respondent No.1- Kamini and the DNA test report indicates that that the revision petitioner and respondent No. 1 lived as husband and wife and procreated son Kuldeepak, respondent No.2. 10. However, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, there is enough material on record to prima facie arrive at the conclusion that respondent No.1 Kamini had married Ashish and though she is not living with him anymore, the marriage has not been legally dissolved and her alleged marriage to the revision petitioner, can be said to be void having been performed during the life time of Kamini's husband Ashish Chourasiya. 11. In aforesaid circumstances, the main question before this Court is whether respondent No.1 entitled to maintenance under section 125, not being legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner ? 12. The Supreme Court in the case of Yamuna Bai v. Anantrao [1998 (1) SCC 530], has held that expression 'wife' in section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be interpreted to mean only a legally wedded wife. Marriage of women with a man already having living spouse as per Hindu rites is a complete nullity; therefore, the wife would not be entitled to maintenance. Subsequently, in the case. Savitaben v. State of Gujarat [ AIR 2005 SC 1809 ], the same view was reiterated. 13. It is true that in cases of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit [15(1997)7 SCC 675], and Chhamuniya v Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha [ (2011)1 SCC 141 ], a different view has been taken but the reference made in Chhamuniya’s case has not been answered by a larger bench so far and in the case at hand, the question is not whether marriage between the parties to the case has been strictly proved but the question is whether the alleged marriage is void having been performed during the subsistence of earlier marriage of the wife ? 14. Thus, prima facie it appears that respondent No.1 is not legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner. As such, she is not entitled to interim maintenance. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned order, with regard to respondent No.1 Kamini is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. 15. 14. Thus, prima facie it appears that respondent No.1 is not legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner. As such, she is not entitled to interim maintenance. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned order, with regard to respondent No.1 Kamini is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. 15. Consequently, the impugned order so far as it relates to interim maintenance for respondent No.1 Kamini, is set aside. The impugned order, so far as it relates to interim maintenance of son Kuldeepak, is upheld. 16. Needless to mention that learned trial Court shall decide the matter without being in any manner influence by the observations made in this order.