ORDER 1. This petition has been filed under section 482 CrPC against the order dated 28.5.2016 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge Jaora District Ratlam, in Criminal Revision No.31/2016 whereby he confirmed the order dated 4.12.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class- Alot District Ratlam in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 9/2008 whereby he allowed the respondent's application filed under section 125 CrPC and directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant to this petition are that, the respondent filed an application under section 125 CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Alot for getting maintenance from applicant averting that she is legally wedded wife of applicant and her marriage was solemnized with applicant 12 years ago from the date of filing the application. After marriage, she resided with applicant in Village Elayakhedi but the behaviour of applicant and his family members was not good with her. They used to demand dowry and subjected her to cruelty and also beated her. They expelled respondent after beating her due to which presently respondent lives with her father. She is not able to maintain her while applicant is having 60 bigha of irrigated land and also runs business of selling milk and earns Rs.15,000/- per month and is able to maintain her but has refused to do so without any sufficient cause so applicant be directed to pay maintenance to her. 3. Respondent in his reply denied all allegations and averred that his marriage was earlier solemnized with Premkunwarbai on 4.2.1990 who is living with him as wife. Respondent is not his legally wedded wife. He never beated her nor demanded dowry from her. and that she is able to maintain her and prayed for rejection of the application. 4. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Alot, District Ratlam, after recording the evidence of both the parties allowed the application and directed to pay maintenance Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent observing that respondent is legally wedded wife of applicant and she has sufficient reason to live separately from applicant and is not able to maintain her. The applicant is able to maintain her but refused to do so without any sufficient reason. Being aggrieved from that order, applicant filed Criminal Revision No.31/2016. The applicant is able to maintain her but refused to do so without any sufficient reason. Being aggrieved from that order, applicant filed Criminal Revision No.31/2016. That criminal revision was disposed of by IInd ASJ, Jaora Link Court Alot, District Ratlam, whereby he also maintained the trial Court's order and rejected the applicants revision against which applicant filed this criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the evidence it was clear that respondent was not legally wedded wife of applicant. Earlier applicant’s marriage was solemnized with Premkunwarbai who is alive and resides with applicant. The marriage of applicant was not solemnized with respondent according to Hindu customs and law so she is not a legally wedded wife of applicant. 6. He further submitted that from the evidence, it is also proved that applicant never beated respondent nor demanded any dowry. Respondent herself without any sufficient reason lives separately. Learned trial Court as well as revisional Court committed mistake in directing the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- as maintenance to the respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that from the evidence it is clearly proved that respondent is legally wedded wife of applicant and she has a reason to live separately from applicant and applicant has refused to do so without any sufficient reason. So the learned trial Court has not committed mistake in allowing the respondents application. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the statement of applicant and Vilamkunwar DW2 and Premkunwarbai DW3 it is clearly proved that earlier marriage of applicant was solemnized with Premkunwarbai who is the legally wedded wife of applicant. Respondent Chenkunwarbai married with applicant in lifetime of Premkunwarbai so her marriage is void. Even in Civil Suit No.115-A/2005 filed by Premkunwarbai against the applicant and respondent learned Additional District Judge clearly held Premkunwarbai is a legally wedded wife of applicant. The respondent Chenkunwarbai is the second wife of applicant so respondent is not entitled to get maintenance but his argument has no force. 9. Although applicant Sardar Singh DW1, Vilamkunwar DW2 and Premkunwarbai DW3 deposed that earlier applicant's marriage was solemnized with Premkunwarbai who is a legally wedded wife of applicant. Even in the judgment passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge Ujjain, in Civil Suit No.15-A/2005 filed by Premkunwarbai against applicant and respondent Court held that Premkunwarbai is the first wife of Sardar Singh. Even in the judgment passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge Ujjain, in Civil Suit No.15-A/2005 filed by Premkunwarbai against applicant and respondent Court held that Premkunwarbai is the first wife of Sardar Singh. So it appears that applicant earlier married with Premkunwarbai then again married with respondent Chenkunwarbai in the life time of Premkunwarbai. 10. But applicant himself admitted in his statement that his marriage was solemnized with respondent 15 years ago at village Dabdia Honble apex Court in its judgment passed in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and another, reported in (2014)1 SCC 188 , clearly held that in view of the fact that respondent had duped the applicant wife by not revealing to her the fact of his earlier marriage, held, husband cannot deny maintenance to her in such a case - he cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong by raising the aforesaid contention- giving purposive construction to provisions of section 125 CrPC and applying mischief rule women would be treated as a legally wedded wife-Judgment of Supreme Court in Yamunabai, (1988)1 SCC 530 and Savitaben, (2005)3 SCC 636 , supporting the contention of husband would apply only in those circumstances where a women marries a man with full knowledge of subsistence of his first marriage. 11. While applicant did not depose in his statement that Chenkunwarbai married him knowingly that he was already married. On the contrary applicant Sardar Singh PW1 clearly admitted in his cross-examination that in his community before marriage bride and groom do not meet each other. His marriage was arranged with Chenkunwarbai by his father. He also did not give any suggestion to Chenkunwarbai in her cross-examination that she married with applicant knowing that he was already married. So he did not prove that Chenkunwarbai married him knowingly that he was already married. So he is bound to give maintenance to her. 12. Respondent Chenkunwarbai in her statement clearly deposed that after marriage he resided with applicant but behaviour of applicant and her parents-in-law was not good. He used to harass her and demanded dowry and expelled her from his matrimonial house. So he is bound to give maintenance to her. 12. Respondent Chenkunwarbai in her statement clearly deposed that after marriage he resided with applicant but behaviour of applicant and her parents-in-law was not good. He used to harass her and demanded dowry and expelled her from his matrimonial house. Although applicant in his statement denied the allegations and learned counsel of applicant also submitted that it was clear from Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-7 that earlier Chenkunwarbai had filed a criminal complaint against applicant for the offence under section 498A and 323 IPC wherein Court acquitted the applicant from the aforesaid charges by the judgment dt. 10.12.2014 (Ex.D-7) which shows that Chenkunwarbai’ allegations are false. Although from the documents Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-7 it appears that applicant Chenkunwarbai had earlier filed a criminal complaint against applicant for the offences under sections 498A and 506 IPC and Learned trial Court after trial acquitted the applicant from the aforesaid charges but only on that ground it cannot be assumed that Chenkunwarbai’s statement is false. 13. Because applicant himself in para 6 of his cross-examination stated that he did not want to keep Chenkunwarbai with him which shows that applicant himself deserted Chenkunwarbai without any sufficient cause so it is also proved that respondent has sufficient reason to live separately from applicant. 14. Respondent also deposed that she is not able to maintain herself. Applicant has not challenged her statement in her cross-examination. Even applicant also did not depose in his statement that respondent is able to maintain her. So there is no reason to disbelieve the respondent’s statement in this regard. 15. Respondent also deposed that applicant is having 50 to 60 Bigha irrigated land and also runs business of selling milk and is able to maintain her. Applicant also did not depose in his statement that he is unable to maintain respondent Chenkunwarbai. So it is proved from the evidence that respondent unable to maintain herself while applicant is able to maintain her but is not doing so without any sufficient cause. So respondent is entitled to take maintenance from applicant. 16. As far as the amount is concerned, learned trial Court has only awarded Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent which cannot be said to be excess considering the applicant’s income. So respondent is entitled to take maintenance from applicant. 16. As far as the amount is concerned, learned trial Court has only awarded Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent which cannot be said to be excess considering the applicant’s income. So, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court as well as revisional Court did not commit mistake in allowing the application of respondent filed under section 125 CrPC and awarding maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to her. 17. Hence, the petition is dismissed.