JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 21.08.2008, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Maintenance Case No. 89 of 2005, by which the petitioner has been directed to make payment of Rs.500/- per month to the opposite party. 3. An application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was preferred by the opposite party, in which she had stated that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner in the year 1970 as per the Uraon Customary Rites and out of the said wedlock one son namely Mangra Oraon was born in the year 1975. 4. It has been stated in the said application that the petitioner after marriage was residing at his in-laws place but in 1975 he had left the house and started living with his first wife-Birsi Urain at Karanj Toli. Some agricultural land was provided to the opposite party for her livelihood but in the year 2001, the petitioner had taken back the land and since then the opposite party is residing at her father’s house. On being noticed, the petitioner had filed his show cause, in which he had stated that he was married in the year 1968 to Birsi Urain. The petitioner has also denied to have solemnized marriage with the opposite party. 5. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi vide judgment dated 21.8.2008 had allowed the application preferred by the opposite party and directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs.500/- per month as maintenance. 6. Assailing the impugned judgement dated 21.8.2008, Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that when admittedly the petitioner already has a first wife there is no question of making payment of maintenance even if it is assumed that the petitioner had solemnized marriage with the opposite party. Learned counsel submits that “term” wife would not include a second wife and the learned court below only on consideration that the opposite party had stayed with the petitioner for a considerable length of time although the same has been denied by the petitioner has allowed the application preferred by the opposite party under section 125 Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel submits that “term” wife would not include a second wife and the learned court below only on consideration that the opposite party had stayed with the petitioner for a considerable length of time although the same has been denied by the petitioner has allowed the application preferred by the opposite party under section 125 Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party on the other hand has supported the impugned order dated 21.8.2008 and has stated that the opposite party in very clear terms had disclosed about her marriage with the petitioner in the year 1970 and the son having been born out of the said wedlock. 8. Since the Lower Court Records had been called for, same has been perused. 9. It appears that admittedly the petitioner had solemnized a first marriage with Birsi Urain who incidentally happens to be the sister of the opposite party. The petitioner and the opposite party are guided by the Tribal Customary Laws governing Oraons and learned counsel has stated that amongst the Oraons, Monogamy is practiced and bigamy is an exception whereas Polygamy is never permitted. Therefore, it is to be seen as to whether the second marriage of the petitioner with the opposite party was by keeping the opposite party in dark about her earlier marriage and whether even if it is assumed that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the opposite party whether the same can be said to be a valid subsisting marriage and whether the definition of the term “wife” can be extended to cover the case of the opposite party so as to enable her to claim maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. from the petitioner. 10. In order to come to a definite finding, reference is being made to the case of Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhay & Anr. Reported in (1988)1 SCC 530 wherein it was held that a hindu lady who had married after coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act with a person who had been living with a lawfully wedded wife cannot be permitted to be a legally wedded wife and subsequently her claim for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. was declared as not maintainable. 11. In the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit & Anr. 11. In the case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit & Anr. Reported in (1999)7 SCC 675 , it was held as follows :- “…….The validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. is to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties. The standard of proof of marriage in such proceeding is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under section 494 of the IPC. If the claimant in proceedings under section 125 of the Code succeeds in showing that she and the respondent have lived together as husband and wife, the court can presume that they are legally wedded spouse, and in such a situation, the party who denies the marital status can rebut the presumption. Once it is admitted that the marriage procedure was followed then it is not necessary to further probe into whether the said procedure was complete as per the Hindu Rites in the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. From the evidence which is led if the Magistrate is prima facie satisfied with regard to the performance of marriage in proceedings under section 125, Cr.P.C. which are of summary nature strict proof of performance of essential rites is not required”. 12. In the case of Chanmuniya Vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr. Reported in (2011)1 SCC 141 , the terms “wife” was given a wider interpretation and it was held as follows :- “12…..A broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term “wife” to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a pre-condition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under section 125”. 13. The aforesaid judgements were considered in the case of Badshah Vs. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr. Reported in (2014) 1 SCC 188 , wherein it was held as follows :- “15. 13. The aforesaid judgements were considered in the case of Badshah Vs. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr. Reported in (2014) 1 SCC 188 , wherein it was held as follows :- “15. Firstly, in Chanmunia case, the parties had been living together for a long time and on that basis question arose as to whether there would be a presumption of marriage between the two because of the said person, thus, giving rise to claim of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by interpreting the term “wife” widely. The Court has impressed that if man and woman have been living together for a long time even without a valid marriage, as in that case, term of valid marriage entitling such a woman to maintenance should be drawn and a woman in such a case should be entitled to maintain application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. On the other hand, in the present case, respondent no. 1 has been able to prove, by cogent and strong evidence, that the petitioner and respondent no. 1 had been married each other. 16. Secondly, as already discussed above, when the marriage between respondent No. 1 and petitioner was solemnized, the petitioner had kept the respondent no. 1 in dark about her first marriage. A false representation was given to respondent No. 1 that he was single and was competent to enter into martial tie with Respondent No. 1. In such circumstances, can the petitioner be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong and turn around to say that respondents are not entitled to maintenance by filing the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as respondent no. 1 is not “legally wedded wife” of the petitioner? Our answer is in the negative. We are of the view that at least for the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C., respondent no. 1 would be treated as the wife of the petitioner, going by the spirit of the two judgements we have reproduced above. For this reason, we are of the opinion that the judgements of this Court in Adhav and Savitaben cases would apply only in those circumstances where a woman married a man with full knowledge of the first subsisting marriage. In such cases, she should know that second marriage with such a person is impermissible and there is an embargo under the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore she has to suffer the consequences thereof. In such cases, she should know that second marriage with such a person is impermissible and there is an embargo under the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore she has to suffer the consequences thereof. The said judgement would not apply to those cases where a man marriages second time by keeping that lady in dark about the first surviving marriage. This is the only way two sets of judgements can be reconciled and harmonized”. 14. Therefore what can be culled out from the aforesaid pronouncements that even in case where a person marries for the second time and the woman is unaware about the earlier marital status of her husband, she cannot be denied the fruits of the beneficial provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. However, the opposite would be the case where a woman is aware about the earlier subsisting marriage of her husband and thereafter enters into a nuptial relation, consequence of such would be the denial of maintenance in terms of section 125 Cr.P.C. 15. In the background of the judicial pronouncements on the subject the evidence of the opposite party before the learned Family Court has been visited and from which it appears that the petitioner was earlier married with the sister of the opposite party and therefore she was very much aware about the subsisting marriage of the petitioner with her sister and knowing the said fact she claims to have entered into a marital relationship with the petitioner and therefore by applying the ratio of the judgment in the case of Badshah(Supra) it can be concluded that the opposite party is never entitled for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. even if it is assumed that her marriage was indeed solemnized with the petitioner and as both belong to Oraon community, the customary rites of Oraon prevents a second marriage during subsistence of first marriage and on such parameters, therefore, the impugned order dated 21.8.2018 becomes unsustainable in the eyes of law. 16. Accordingly, this application stands allowed and the judgement dated 21.08.2008, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Maintenance Case No. 89 of 2005, by which the application preferred by the opposite party under section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed is hereby quashed and set aside.