ORDER : 1. Applicants have preferred this revision petition against the order dated 03.12.2015 passed in M.Cr.C. No.551/2014 by which learned Judge, Family Court, Kabirdham, District-Kabirdham partly allowed the application filed by applicants under Section 125 of CrPC and while rejecting claim of applicant No.1 for maintenance, awarded maintenance of Rs.1500/- p.m. each to applicants No.2 & 3 from the date of order. 2. Learned counsel for applicants submits that non-applicant was earlier married with Sunita Bai and from the said wedlock he was blessed with one child. After the death of his first wife, non-applicant performed Chudi marriage with applicant No.1. Both of them resided happily for about 12 years and from their wedlock they are blessed with two child i.e. applicants No.2 & 3. After the Chudi marriage with applicant No.1, name of applicants were also recorded in the service book of non-applicant as his wife and children. Subsequently, without there being any sufficient cause, the non-applicant deserted the applicants and stopped maintaining them. Therefore, applicants have filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC before the learned Family Court, which came to be allowed in part by impugned order, allowing claim of applicants No.2 & 3, however, claim of applicant No.1 was rejected on the ground that she being Chudi wife and not legally married wife of non-applicant is not entitled for maintenance. Such finding of learned Family Court is erroneous and liable to be interfered with in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further contended that the amount awarded as monthly maintenance to applicants No.2 & 3 is also too meager and insufficient to meet their expenses. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the order dated 12.10.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.755/2021, parties being Ashok Shrivastava v. Anju Samudri Shrivastava; Devarinti Venkatramana, Peddapanjani Mandal v. P.P., Hyd., reported in 2022 SCC Online AP 1310, Meghraj Sahu v. Lata Bai, reported in 2021 SCC Online Chh 1819 decided on 19.05.2021, Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and anther, reported in (2020) 19 SCC 342 , Ramtabai Sahu v. Johan Ram Sahu, reported in 2018 SCC Online Chh 879 decided on 30.7.2018, Smt. Sukhraji v. Puran Prasad, in case of Criminal Revision No.471 of 2006 decided on 20.1.2017, Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and another, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 188 . 3. 3. Learned counsel for the non-applicant husband opposing the submissions of learned counsel for applicants, submits that there is no error in the finding recorded by trial Court that applicant No.1 is not legally wedded wife of non-applicant. Applicant No.1 was earlier married with one Ramesh of village-Patharra, however, as she developed illicit relation with one Dharmendra @ Fondi, therefore, she left the house of her husband and started residing in the company of Dharmendra. Applicant No.1 was having illicit relationship and till date she has not taken divorce from her earlier husband in accordance with law. Applicant No.1 could not have performed the second marriage during subsistence of first marriage with Ramesh and therefore the submission of counsel for the applicant that the applicant No.1 the wife of the non-applicant, is not sustainable. He further contended that the amount of compensation awarded to the applicants No.2 & 3 was just and proper. It is further contention of counsel for non-applicant that after passing of the order under Section 125 of CrPC on 3.12.2015, the applicants have further filed application under Section 127 of CrPC before the Family Court on 9.3.2018 seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to respondents No.2 & 3 and accordingly amount of compensation was enhanced by learned Family Court in the proceeding under Section 127 of CrPC vide order dated 9.3.2018 from Rs.1,500/- to 2,500/- to applicants No.2 & 3. Revision with respect to applicant No.2 & 3 in view of the subsequent order passed by Family Court under Section 127 of CrPC in a proceeding initiated by applicants No.2 & 3 is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and minutely perused record of the Family Court including impugned order and evidence adduced by the parties before the Family Court. 5. Perusal of the impugned order dated 3.12.2015 would show that learned Family Court had rejected the claim of applicant No.1 on the ground that she is not “legally wedded wife”, however, by observing that applicants No.2 & 3 born from the relationship of applicant No.1 with non-applicant, awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs.1500/- per month to them from the date of order till they attain age of majority. 6. As per pleadings made in application under Section 125 of CrPC, applicant No.1 performed Chudi marriage with non-applicant about 12 years ago. 6. As per pleadings made in application under Section 125 of CrPC, applicant No.1 performed Chudi marriage with non-applicant about 12 years ago. Thereafter, non-applicant took the applicant No.1 along with him to Village Pattara Police-station Lormi where they started living as husband-wife. First wife of non-applicant died earlier and applicant was having a son namely Sanjeev from his first wife, who was also residing with applicant No.1 and non-applicant. Out of conjugal relation between applicant No.1 and non-applicant, applicant No.1 gave birth to applicant No.2 Vivek and applicant No.3-Nikhil. Thereafter, they shifted to village Agri as the non-applicant was selected as Shiksha Karmi and posted in aforementioned village. They resided in village Agri for about four years and during this period, applicant No.1 again became pregnant and gave birth to applicant No.3 Nikhil. On account of transfer from Kishungarh to Pandariya, they shifted to Pandariya and started residing there in a rented accommodation. Non-applicant, who is an artist also, joined a group of artists in the name and style of ‘Lok Jhankaar’. Applicant developed relationship with one Usha Bai, a member of said group of artists. Ultimately, in the first week of January, 2014 non-applicant had told applicant No.1 that he has performed marriage with said Usha Bai, therefore, now she cannot live with them. When applicant No.1 requested them to allow her to live in the house, non-applicant assaulted her and threatened that if she will reside there, they will kill her by administering poison, therefore, she along with her children came back to her parental home. Non-applicant is earning Rs.9,600/- per month from his employment as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and apart from this, he also possess agricultural land from which also, earning Rs.90,000/- per annum. Non-applicant is deliberately neglecting to maintain the non-applicants. Hence, applicants are entitled for monthly maintenance from the Non-applicant. 7. In the reply to application under Section 125 of CrPC, non-applicant admitted in para-1 that he has one son namely Sanjeev and about 8-9 years back, he was appointed as Shiksha Karmi. 8. Applicant No.1 examined herself as AW-1. She in her statement stated all the facts as pleaded in the application under Section 125 of CrPC. In cross-examination, she admitted that initially she was married with one Ramesh son of Fagun Satnami with whom she resided for about 5 years. 8. Applicant No.1 examined herself as AW-1. She in her statement stated all the facts as pleaded in the application under Section 125 of CrPC. In cross-examination, she admitted that initially she was married with one Ramesh son of Fagun Satnami with whom she resided for about 5 years. She denied other allegations that she has developed relation with one Dharmendra while residing in the house of her first husband Ramesh. She further admitted that in their community there is practice to record in writing the proceeding of “Chhor-Chutti”; she has not produced any document with respect to separation (Chhor-Chutti) from her first husband Ramesh. 9. Devchand Goyal was examined as AW-2 and he in his examination-inchief filed in the shape of affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC stated that, about 12 years ago non-applicant performed Chudi marriage with applicant No.1 and from their relationship, applicant No.2 & 3 born. In cross-examination, he stated that he was known to non-applicant and applicant No.1. Applicant No.1 resided with Non-applicant lastly at Pandariya and before that also they resided happily. Applicant is the main Singer of Lok Jhankar group of artists; Non-applicant developed relationship with another artist (dancer) of the group which was the root cause of dispute between applicant No.1 and non-applicant. 10. Non-applicant No.1 submitted his examination-in-chief in the shape of an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC. In para-3 of examination-inchief he admitted that he resided along with non-applicant for about 4 years and from their relationship, Vivek and Nikhil were born i.e. applicant No.2 & 3. Applicant No.1 lodged FIR in the police-station Pandariya leveling false allegations and thereafter under pressure he was made to sign in a stamp paper. In cross-examination, Non-applicant admitted that his wife Sandhya (applicant No.1) lodged complaint in Police Station Pandariya. Name of applicant No.1 is not recorded in his service book. Further clarified that name of children are entered. He further stated that he did not meet applicant No.1 prior to start of their relationship. At the time when he accepted applicant No.1, he was not working as Shiksha Karmi. In Para-16 of the crossexamination, he admitted that second delivery of applicant No.1 was in his ancestral village Bhatausa. 11. Further clarified that name of children are entered. He further stated that he did not meet applicant No.1 prior to start of their relationship. At the time when he accepted applicant No.1, he was not working as Shiksha Karmi. In Para-16 of the crossexamination, he admitted that second delivery of applicant No.1 was in his ancestral village Bhatausa. 11. Bhanu Lahre is examined as NAW-2 and in para-9 of crossexamination he admitted that from the relationship of applicant No.1 with non-applicant they were blessed with two children and the ancestral village of non-applicant is Bhatausa. Om Prakash is examined as NAW-3 and in para-4 of his cross-examination he admitted that name of wife of non-applicant is Sandhya (applicant No.1) and further that the non-applicant is having two children from his wife Sandhya. Applicant No.1 and non-applicant along with two children resided as tenant in the house of Ram Kumar Tandon at Samarupara, Pandariya. Vijay Patile is examined as NAW-4 in para-4 of his cross-examination, he admitted that applicant No.1 is a lady of good character. 12. From the aforementioned evidence available on record, it is appearing that admittedly after death of his first wife, non-applicant and applicant No.1 lived as husband-wife for considerable long period and from their conjugal intercourse applicant No.2 & 3 born. 13. In view of the admission made by applicant No.1 that since there was no Chhor-Chutti with her first husband Ramesh, she has not filed any document in this regard. Meaning thereby, there was no divorce between applicant No.1 and her first husband Ramesh. However, when there is admission by the witnesses including non-applicant that applicant No.1 and the non-applicant lived as husband-wife and from their relationship, applicants No.2 & 3 born, the question for consideration is whether learned Family Court was justified in rejecting claim of applicant No.1 only on the ground that she is not the legally wedded wife. 14. Provision under Section 125 of CrPC only provides maintenance to the deserted wife who is not having any source of income. The term ‘wife’ will have to be given more broader and purposive interpretation. 14. Provision under Section 125 of CrPC only provides maintenance to the deserted wife who is not having any source of income. The term ‘wife’ will have to be given more broader and purposive interpretation. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 188 while dealing with the issue of grant of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC to a wife where her marriage was not in accordance with the recognized form or law, has held in para-13.1, 14, 15, 17, 18 & 20 as under:- “13. 1 Firstly, in Chanmuniya 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 reason, 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. 14. Of late, in this very direction, it is emphasized that the Courts have to adopt different approaches in “social justice adjudication”, which is also known as “social context adjudication” as mere “adversarial approach” may not be very appropriate. There are number of social justice legislations giving special protection and benefits to vulnerable groups in the society. Prof. Madhava Menon describes it eloquently: “It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that “social context judging” is essentially the application of equality jurisprudence as evolved by Parliament and the Supreme Court in myriad situations presented before courts where unequal parties are pitted in adversarial proceedings and where courts are called upon to dispense equal justice. Apart from the social- economic inequalities accentuating the disabilities of the poor in an unequal fight, the adversarial process itself operates to the disadvantage of the weaker party. Apart from the social- economic inequalities accentuating the disabilities of the poor in an unequal fight, the adversarial process itself operates to the disadvantage of the weaker party. In such a situation, the judge has to be not only sensitive to the inequalities of parties involved but also positively inclined to the weaker party if the imbalance were not to result in miscarriage of justice. This result is achieved by what we call social context judging or social justice adjudication.” 15. The provision of maintenance would definitely fall in this category which aims at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice or equality and dignity of the individual. While dealing with cases under this provision, drift in the approach from “adversarial” litigation to social context adjudication is the need of the hour. 17. Cardozo acknowledges in his classic “….no system of jus scriptum has been able to escape the need of it”, and he elaborates: “It is true that Codes and Statutes do not render the Judge superfluous, nor his work perfunctory and mechanical. There are gaps to be filled. There are hardships and wrongs to be mitigated if not avoided. Interpretation is often spoken of as if it were nothing but the search and the discovery of a meaning which, however, obscure and latent, had none the less a real and ascertainable pre- existence in the legislator’s mind. The process is, indeed, that at times, but it is often something more. The ascertainment of intention may be the least of a judge’s troubles in ascribing meaning to a stature.” Says Gray in his lectures. “The fact is that the difficulties of so-called interpretation arise when the legislature has had no meaning at all; when the question which is raised on the statute never occurred to it; when what the judges have to do is, not to determine that the legislature did mean on a point which was present to its mind, but to guess what is would have intended on a point not present to its mind, if the point had been present.” 18. The Court as the interpreter of law is supposed to supply omissions, correct uncertainties, and harmonize results with justice through a method of free decision —“libre recherché sceintifique” i.e. “free Scientific research”. The Court as the interpreter of law is supposed to supply omissions, correct uncertainties, and harmonize results with justice through a method of free decision —“libre recherché sceintifique” i.e. “free Scientific research”. We are of the opinion that there is a nonrebuttable presumption that the Legislature while making a provision like Section 125 Cr.P.C., to fulfill its Constitutional duty in good faith, had always intended to give relief to the woman becoming “wife” under such circumstances. This approach is particularly needed while deciding the issues relating to gender justice. We already have examples of exemplary efforts in this regard. Journey from Shah Bano10 to Shabana Bano11 guaranteeing maintenance rights to Muslim women is a classical example. 20. Thus, while interpreting a statute the court may not only take into consideration the purpose for which the statute was enacted, but also the mischief it seeks to suppress. It is this mischief rule, first propounded in Heydon’s Case which became the historical source of purposive interpretation. The court would also invoke the legal maxim construction ut res magis valeat quam pereat, in such cases i.e. where alternative constructions are possible the Court must give effect to that which will be responsible for the smooth working of the system for which the statute has been enacted rather than one which will put a road block in its way. If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation should be avoided. We should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should accept the bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result. If this interpretation is not accepted, it would amount to giving a premium to the husband for defrauding the wife. Therefore, at least for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., such a woman is to be treated as the legally wedded wife.” 15. In the above case before Hon’ble Supreme Court, the husband had duped the wife in entering into a relationship with him which she believed was a relationship of marriage even though husband has not divorced his earlier wife. Hon’ble Apex Court after considering the entirety of facts and circumstances concluded that the husband was at fault, he cannot take benefit of his own fault and deny maintenance. 16. Hon’ble Apex Court after considering the entirety of facts and circumstances concluded that the husband was at fault, he cannot take benefit of his own fault and deny maintenance. 16. Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned case in uncertain terms while dealing with the provision of 125 of CrPC, has held that the word ‘wife’ has to be interpreted liberally. The present is not a case of only a live-in-relationship but much more than a live in relationship. The husband in his evidence before the learned Family Court stated applicant No.1 to be his wife. Applicant No.1 and his witnesses stated that applicant No.1 performed Chudi marriage with non-applicant. The Chudi marriage is recognized in their society as per their custom. In absence of Chhor-Chutti, the said Chudi marriage may not be strictly legal but from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is appearing that applicant No.1 was taken by non-applicant treating her to be his wife. No lady/woman would have entered into this relationship if she had known that she would not be treated as the wife. The person cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time. Husband having taken advantage of this relationship for quite long time as also enjoyed sexual relation with applicant No.1 as a result they were blessed with two children, now the non-applicant cannot be permitted to turn around and say that she is not his legally wedded wife and he is not liable to pay the maintenance. Such interpretation would be totally against the law laid down in the case of Badshah (supra). Applicant No.1 is not shown to be highly educated lady, she is not aware about the legal implications of law and therefore Court must interpret the law in such a manner that destitute woman do not become vagabonds. 17. In the case at hand, applicant No.1 and the non-applicant were already married. Wife of non-applicant died living behind one child and applicant No.1 separated from her first husband and resided in her parental home for quite long time. In these circumstances, both of them chose to enter into relationship which both of them clearly understood to be a relationship of marriage. 18. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I have no hesitation to hold that applicant No.1 wife is entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. 19. In these circumstances, both of them chose to enter into relationship which both of them clearly understood to be a relationship of marriage. 18. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I have no hesitation to hold that applicant No.1 wife is entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. 19. Now I will consider whether applicant No.1 was having reasonable cause to reside separately from non-applicant. In the pleadings as also in the evidence of the witnesses it has come that during stay of applicant No.1 with non-applicant as husband and wife, non-applicant developed extra marital relationship with one Usha Bai and due to the said relationship non-applicant after quarreling had ousted the applicant No.1 and a report in this regard was also lodged in the concerned police-station. AW-2 Devchand Goyal in his crossexamination stated about relation of non-applicant husband with one dancer of the group of non-applicant. Main defence taken by Non-applicant to deny the claim of applicant No.1 is that she is not his legally wedded wife, but admitted the relationship with her and also the birth of two children from their relationship. In the aforementioned facts of the case and in the opinion of this Court, applicant No.1 was having sufficient cause to reside separately from the non-applicant. 20. In the light of the above, now the question arises as to what amount should be fixed as maintenance. It is not in dispute that non-applicant is employed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and the learned Family Court based on the evidence brought on record i.e. from the particulars of salary slip, has assessed total income of non-applicant as Rs.19,385/-. 21. Taking note of the income of non-applicant, as assessed by the Family Court, and further considering that the learned Family Court has awarded Rs.1500/- each to applicant No.2 & 3, I find it appropriate to allow application under Section 125 CrPC with respect to applicant No.1 in part and to grant her maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,500/- per month from the date of application. 22. 22. So far as the prayer for enhancement of the amount of maintenance awarded to applicants No. 2 & 3 is concerned, as submitted by learned counsel for non-applicant that the maintenance awarded to applicant No.2 & 3 is already enhanced in an application filed under Section 127 (3) CrPC, I am not inclined to consider their claim for enhancement of the amount of maintenance because it is already enhanced in other proceeding. 23. The learned Family Court has awarded the maintenance applicant No.2 & 3 from the date of the order and not from the date of application, which is against the settled principle of law. The maintenance normally should be granted from the date of filing of application and therefore, the impugned order to that extent also cannot be sustained. 24. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. Impugned order is modified to the extent that now non-applicant shall pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the applicant No.1 from the date of application and the amount of maintenance to non-applicant No.2 & 3 will also be payable from the date of filing of application under Section 125 CrPC instead from the date of order. 25. Considering the fact that the application was filed on 30.12.2014 and this Court is passing the order granting maintenance to the applicant No.1 after about more than 9 years, it is observed that the Non-applicant shall pay an additional sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.1 till the entire amount of arrears of maintenance is paid by him. 26. The revision is allowed in part and the impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.