ORDER : The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court. 2. The alleged wife and daughter/petitioners filed this revision petition against the order dated 21.07.2016 made in Crl.Misc.No.116/2013 on the file of the District Judge Family Court at Kalaburagi, awarding maintenance of Rs.2,500/per month to the petitioner No.2 from the date of petition till her marriage for enhancement and rejecting the maintenance to the petitioner No.1wife. 3. It is the case of the petitioners/wife and daughter before the Family Court that, petitioner No.1 is married with the respondent in the year 1978 and she has three children out of their wedlock by name Nagraj, Anand and Swetharani. The daughter petitioner No.2 unmarried. The respondent has contracted second marriage after about 45 years of marriage with petitioner No.1. The same came to the knowledge of petitioner No.1 only in the month of January 2012 and on enquiry she came to know that respondent is residing with second wife Chandrakala. He has not joined the company of petitioners and he has not made any arrangement for providing maintenance. It was further contend that the respondent has executed mutual agreement for payment of maintenance of Rs.3,000/per month to petitioners on 28.12.2012, but he has failed to pay the same. Therefore, legal notice was issued which was served on respondent, but respondent has not paid the maintenance amount nor replied to the notice. The petitioner No.2 is studying in II P.U. at Gulbarga. The respondent was working as Head Constable and after retirement he is drawing pension of Rs.11,000/per month. The petitioner No.1 is not earning member. Therefore, they have filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance. 4. The respondent has filed objections denying the averments made in the petition and contended that the respondent had an illicit relationship with petitioner No.1 and out of the said relationship three children by name Nagaraj, Anand and Swetharani were born. He further contended that the respondent has married to one Chandrakala in the year 1976 at Dandagunda Basaveshwar Temple, Chittapur Taluka. The said Chandrakala is the legally wedded wife and there are four issues out of the said wedlock. The respondent is residing with them and he has to take care of his wife and children. He further contended that the petitioner No.1 is legally wedded wife of one Basavaraj s/o Basanna Chatti resident of Rukmapur. The said Chandrakala is the legally wedded wife and there are four issues out of the said wedlock. The respondent is residing with them and he has to take care of his wife and children. He further contended that the petitioner No.1 is legally wedded wife of one Basavaraj s/o Basanna Chatti resident of Rukmapur. Her marriage was performed on 17.07.1975 at Soograyya Temple Devasugur Tq: Chittapur. The petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed by her, against Basavaraj in Crl.Misc.No.56/1976 before JMFC Court Shorapur, came to be withdrawn. The marriage between the petitioner No.1 and Basavaraja is still subsisting. Therefore, she is not legally wedded wife of respondent. It was further contended that petitioner No.1 was harassing respondent and black mailing him and therefore the respondent for the sake of his illegitimate children, he has paid Rs.6,00,000/to them. In that regard an agreement also came to be executed in favour of the petitioner No.1. Hence, petitioner No.2 is also not entitled to any maintenance. The respondent is drawing monthly pension of Rs.11,000/only. It is only the source of income for him and his family members. The respondent is mentally depressed patient and he is under treatment with Dr.Ghanate and he is spending Rs.2,000/per month. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. In view of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the Family Court framed the following points: 1. Whether the petitioners prove that in laws she is entitled to maintenance from the respondent and that respondent by having sufficient means neglected to maintain them? 2. Whether petitioners are entitled to maintenance amount? If so at what rate? 3. What order? 6. In order to establish their case the petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and documents marked as Ex.P.1 and 7. The respondent examined himself as DW.1 and got marked documents Ex.D.1 to 15. 7. The Family Court after considering oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded a finding that in view of the earlier marriage between the petitioner and one Basavaraj s/o Basanna Chatti, she is not entitled for any maintenance. Accordingly, petition came to be allowed in part on 21.07.2016 by granting maintenance of Rs.2,500/per month to the petitioner No.2 from the date of petition till her marriage and rejected the maintenance to first petitioner. Hence, the present revision petition is filed for the relief sought for. 8. Accordingly, petition came to be allowed in part on 21.07.2016 by granting maintenance of Rs.2,500/per month to the petitioner No.2 from the date of petition till her marriage and rejected the maintenance to first petitioner. Hence, the present revision petition is filed for the relief sought for. 8. The respondent has not filed any Review petition against the impugned order for granting maintenance to the petitioner No.2. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 10. Sri. Deepak.V.Barad, learned counsel for the petitioner/wife and daughter vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Family Court rejecting the maintenance of petitioner No.1wife on the ground that she has already married one Basavaraj s/o Basanna Chatti and it was not divorced by any competent Court. The solemnization of marriage by first petitioner with respondent itself becomes null and void, but Family Court erred in not taking into consideration of the material on record. He would further contended that the Family Court has not justified in deciding the validity of the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent exercising powers under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. He would further contended that the Family Court having recorded a finding that petitioner No.2 born ought of petitioner No.1 to the respondent and she is entitled for maintenance. The Family Court ought not to have reject the claim made by the petitioner No.1. He would further contended that there is a marriage certificate as per Ex.P.4 extract of SubRegistrar of marriage clearly depicts that there was valid marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent. The Ex.P.3 “Declaration of Marriage Agreement” clearly depicts that both the petitioner No.1 and respondent entered into marriage on 04.03.1978 stating that, they being major have entered into this marriage with their own free will, consent and pleasure in token of their permanent union of law and affection and with an object of living together as husband and wife permanently. The same was registered in the Sub-Registrar Office. The prima facia the marriage is valid with petitioner No.1 and respondent. Hence, respondent has to pay the maintenance as per the provisions of Section 125 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C. Unfortunately, the Family Court has not considered the said material document on record and proceeded to reject the maintenance to the petitioner No.1 erroneously. The prima facia the marriage is valid with petitioner No.1 and respondent. Hence, respondent has to pay the maintenance as per the provisions of Section 125 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C. Unfortunately, the Family Court has not considered the said material document on record and proceeded to reject the maintenance to the petitioner No.1 erroneously. Therefore, he sought to setaside the order passed by the Family in rejecting the maintenance to the petitioner No.1. He would further contend that once the Family Court held that petitioner No.2/daughter born to petitioner No.1 and respondent the maintenance granted at Rs.2,500/is inadequate and unreasonable in view of the hike of essential commodities. The petitioners require further enhancement. In support of his contention he would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi Vs. Pyla Suri Demudu and another reported in 2011(9) SCALE 403 . Therefore, he sought for allow the present Revision Petition. 11. Per contra Sri.Huleppa Heroor, learned counsel for the respondent, sought for justify the impugned order passed by the Family Court and strenuously contended that in view of Ex.D.1 certified copy of petition in Crl.Misc.No.56/1976 claiming maintenance against the husband of petitioner No.1 Basavaraj, the very maintenance petition against the respondent for maintenance is not maintainable. It is specific case of the respondent that the alleged marriage between the husband and petitioner No.1 is invalid and she is not entitled for any maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The Family Court considering entire material on record, has rightly rejected the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance. This Court cannot be interfere with the same exercising revisional jurisdiction. He would further contend that since the Family Court pointed out that petitioner No.2 born out of petitioner No.1 and respondent granted maintenance of Rs.2,500/per month taking into consideration of pension of respondent was only Rs.11,000/per month which is just and reasonable. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the same. He would further contended that in view of the Ex.P.5 Agreement between the petitioner No.1 and respondent shows that respondent had paid an amount of Rs.6,00,000/out of Rs.7,50,000/and also agreed to pay two wives namely Chandrakala and Mahadevi at Rs.3,000/per month for their maintenance. There is acknowledgment of receipt of Rs.6,00,000/. On that ground also she has not entitled for any maintenance. There is acknowledgment of receipt of Rs.6,00,000/. On that ground also she has not entitled for any maintenance. He would further contended that insofar as payment of maintenance to both wives Rs.3,000/per month has been disputed by the respondent in his evidence and in the objection before the Family Court. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the present Revision petition. 12. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record carefully. 13. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the marriage of the first petitioner and respondent was performed in the year 1978, both first petitioner and respondent have entered into a declaration of the marriage agreement dated: 05-03-1978 and the same came to be registered before the Sub-Registrar office, Gulbarga. Inspite of having sufficient funds, the respondent refused and neglected to maintain the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the maintenance petition claiming maintenance. 14. The respondent/husband filed objections and specifically contended that, the first petitioner is not the legally wedded wife and he had illicit relationship with first petitioner, thereby they have got three children. Therefore she is not entitled for any maintenance. It was further contended that, earlier the first petitioner was legally wedded wife of one Basavaraj and Criminal Miscellaneous No.56/1996 came to be filed against him under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, subsequently it was withdrawn. Therefore, there was no valid marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and she is not entitled for any maintenance. The Family Court, considering the rival contentions, oral and documentary evidence of the parties, has proceeded to reject the claim of the first petitioner mainly on the ground that, the first petitioner has not produced any document or marriage certificate with Basavaraj has been dissolved by divorce by the competent authority and thereafter she married with the respondent in the year 1978 and it was registered and the earlier marriage between the first petitioner and her husband not dissolved. Therefore she is not entitled for any maintenance. 15. Therefore she is not entitled for any maintenance. 15. The Family Court failed notice the scope of Section 125 (i) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, which clearly depicts that any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, unable to maintain herself, his legitimate minor children whether married or not unable to maintain herself has to pay maintenance to the wife and legitimate children under section 125 (i) (a) & (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Time and again this Court and Hon’ble Apex Court held that the scope of provisions of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure is very limited. The Family Court while considering the provisions of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure has to see whether there was some marriage ceremony between the parties or whether they live like husband and wife in the eye of their neighbors, whether the children born out of the union and Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve social purpose. The object of enactment of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure is to prevent vengeance and destitution, it provides speedy remedy clothing, shelter to the legitimate wife and daughter and the Family Court has no jurisdiction to decide validity otherwise of the marriage between the parties. 16. The Provision of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the Court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created where under she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life “dust unto dust”. It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.” 17. Keeping the scope of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the principles stated supra, coming to the facts of the present case. It is not in dispute that, the marriage of first petitioner and respondent was performed in the year 1978 and subsequently both the parties entered into mutual agreement and registered as per Ex.P.3, Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 the marriage agreements. Ex.P.7 is the marriage card, prima faice clearly depicts that, the first petitioner and respondent lived together from the year 1978 till January 2012 i.e, more than three decades (34 years). It is also not in dispute that, out of their marriage as per Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 the first petitioner and the respondent got three children namely Nagaraj, Anand both sons are married and their marriage was performed by the first petitioner and respondent, second petitioner is the daughter who is unmarried, which clearly indicates that, they lived like husband and wife to the knowledge of the entire society. It is also clearly depicts that, Ex.P.3 declaring marriage agreement came into between the first petitioner and respondent/husband and it was duly signed by both the parties, the said declaration of the marriage agreement clearly depicts that : “By this agreement of Marriage, we both declare that we being majors have entered into this marriage with our own free will, consent and pleasure in token of our permanent union of law and affection and with an object of living together as husband and wife permanently, through out our lives and love together with all lives and together with all rights and responsibilities to ourselves and to the inherited children in future. Since we thought to have our marriage in a simple manner this agreement of marriage is executed with out free will and consent before the attested witnesses and well wishers. The said declaration of marriage also came to be registered in the SubRegistrar Office, Gulbarga as per Ex.P.4. 18. Apart from the legal documents Ex.P.3, Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 (Upanda Patra) i.e. agreement between the two wives and husband/respondent on 03-12-2012, it is categorically stated in the said agreement that, he had two wives and after retirement he want to distribute the retirement amount to both the wives. Therefore, he has taken a decision in the presence of the witnesses and in the presence of their children from two wives, some of them also signed, he has categorically stated that he will pay Rs.7,50,000/to his wife Smt.Mahadevi (first petitioner) and paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/and remaining amount will be paid after one year, he has also stated that, he has already nominated his wife Smt.Chandrakala in his service register book and after his death she is entitled for half pension and another wife Smt.Mahadevi /first petitioner is entitled for half pension and he has also agreed to pay both the wives Rs.3,000/each per month. 19. The said material documents primafacie depicts that, there is valid marriage between the first petitioner and respondent. Therefore, the respondent is bound to maintain the wife/first petitioner as contemplated under section 125(i) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 19. The said material documents primafacie depicts that, there is valid marriage between the first petitioner and respondent. Therefore, the respondent is bound to maintain the wife/first petitioner as contemplated under section 125(i) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Unfortunately the learned Judge/Family Court has not at all considered all these material facts, while proceeding to pass the impugned Judgment, in fact the learned Judge has not at all considered Ex.P.4 Extract of Sub Registrar of Marriage, except reference no discussion is made, thereby the learned Judge has shifted burden on the first petitioner, that she was not legally divorced to the first husband /Basavaraj. Therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. Whether the first petitioner was married to said Basavarasj and got divorced or not has to be established the husband by filing a proper suit before the competent court to discharge his obligation. Since from the year 1978 till January 2012, both lived together and got three children and the same was witnessed by the neighbors and the entire society. It is not open for the respondent to deny the maintenance even after lapse of 34 years even though their marriage was registered before the Jurisdictional Sub-Registrar as per Ex.P.4. If such things are allowed, it is nothing but encouraging vagrancy and destitution to the women the same has not been considered by the Family Court. 20. It is also well settled that, when a husband takes a plea that the marriage was void due to subsistence of earlier marriage, the same requires clear and strict proof and the burden of proof of earlier marriage is on the husband to discharge in the present case, the same has not been done. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while considering the provisions of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the revisional powers of this Court under section 19(4) of the Family Court in the case of Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi V/s Plya Suri Medudi and another) reported in 2011 (12) SCC 189 at para Nos.18, 19, 22 and 23 held as under: 18. It is no doubt true that the learned Judges in Savitaben case had been pleased to hold that scope of Section 125 cannot be enlarged by introducing any artificial definition to include a second woman not legally married, in the expression ‘wife’. It is no doubt true that the learned Judges in Savitaben case had been pleased to hold that scope of Section 125 cannot be enlarged by introducing any artificial definition to include a second woman not legally married, in the expression ‘wife’. But it has also been held therein that the evidence showing that the respondent husband was having a living spouse at the time of alleged marriage with the second wife, will have to be discharged by the husband. Hence, this authority is of no assistance to the counsel for the respondent husband herein as it is nobody’s case that the appellant wife should be held entitled to maintenance even though the first marriage of her husband was subsisting and the respondent husband was having a living wife as there is no quarrel with the legal position that during the subsistence of the first marriage and existence of a living wife (first wife), the claim of maintenance by the second wife cannot be entertained. 19. But, proof and evidence of subsistence of an earlier marriage at the time of solemnising the second marriage, has to be adduced by the husband taking the plea of subsistence of an earlier marriage and when a plea of subsisting marriage is raised by the respondent husband, it has to be satisfactorily proved by tendering evidence. This was the view taken by the learned Judges in Saviteben case also which has been relied upon by the respondent husband. Hence, even if the ratio of this case relied upon by the respondent husband is applied, the respondent husband herein has failed to establish his plea that his earlier marriage was at all in subsistence which he claims to have performed in the year 1970 as he has not led even an iota of evidence in support of his earlier marriage including the fact that he has not produced a single witness except the socalled first wife as a witness of proof of his earlier marriage. The strong circumstance apart from the facts recorded hereinabove, goes heavily against the respondent –husband. 22. The strong circumstance apart from the facts recorded hereinabove, goes heavily against the respondent –husband. 22. Fortifying this view, it was further laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajathi V. C.Ganesan also, that in a case under section 125 CrPC, the Magistrate has to take prima facie view of the matter and it is not necessary for the Magistrate to go into matrimonial disparity between the parties in detail in order to deny maintenance to the claimant wife. Section 125 CrPc proceeds on de facto marriage and not marriage de jure. Thus, validity of the marriage will not be a ground for refusal of maintenance if other requirements of Section 125 CrPC are fulfilled. 23. When the appellant’s case is tested on the anvil of the aforesaid legal position, it is sufficiently clear that the appellant has succeeded in proving that she was the legally married wife of the respondent with three children out of which one had expired while the other two are major and well settled. 21. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Judgment passed by the Family Court rejecting the claim for maintenance under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure to the wife is erroneous, contrary to the material on record. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband that he has already paid Rs.6,00,000/in lumpsum in lieu of maintenance as permanent alimony has to be adjudicated by the Family Court after considering the claim of the petitioner No.1/wife under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, whether the husband/respondent has paid the amount as full and final settlement and whether the first petitioner/wife and respondent/husband lived together as husband and wife has to be adjudicated based on the material oral and documentary evidence already produced and to be produced by the parties. 22. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition filed by the first petitioner /wife for enhancement of maintenance under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. The impugned Judgment passed by the Family Court insofar as not granting maintenance to the wife filed under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure is set aside. 22. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition filed by the first petitioner /wife for enhancement of maintenance under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. The impugned Judgment passed by the Family Court insofar as not granting maintenance to the wife filed under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Family Court for fresh consideration in the light of the admitted facts and in the light of the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court stated supra and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. 23. Insofar as the enhancement of maintenance sought by the second petitioner it is always open for her to file appropriate application for enhancement if, any invoking the provisions of Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 24. All the contentions of both the parties are left open, the Family Court shall decide the claim petition of the first petitioner/wife taking into consideration the scope and objects of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure and in pursuance of the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court stated supra and pass an order strictly in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.