Mst. Sarbati vs Ram Chandra and vice versa

A.K. Mathur, J.—Both these petitions arise out of the same order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh dated 11-4-1983. Therefore they are disposed of by this common order.

The brief facts giving rise to these two petitions are that an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by Smt. Sarbati against Ram Chandra on the ground that she is the lawfully married to Ram Chandra and out of his wed-lock a son was also born. She was earlier married but her husband died, therefore, she contracted second marriage with Ram Chandra. Out of the second marriage a son Surendra was born. He is aged 3 years. After the marriage Ramchandra misbehaved and maltreated her and threw her out. Therefore, the present application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was filed for her maintenance as well as for child''s maintenance. The learned Magistrate granted maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month to Mst. Sarbati and Rs. 75/- p.m. for child''s maintenance. Aggrieved against this order a revision petition was filed by Ram Chandra before the learned Sessions Judge which came to be disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after review of the of evidence came to the conclusion that Ram Chandra married a second wife Mst. Sarbati when his first wife was living. Therefore, the second marriage which he contracted with Mst. ''Sarbati was illegal and as such he set aside the order of the learned Magistrate so for as granting of maintenance to Mst. Sarbati is concerned He how ever confirmed the grant of maintenance to illegitimate child Surendra u/s 125(i)(b) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved against this order both Mst. Sarbati and Ram Chandra have filed the present petitions Mst. Sarbati filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 212/83 challenging the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge denying her maintenance and Ram Chandra filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 163/1983 challenging the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge awarding maintenance of Rs. 75/- to illegitimate child Surendra. Therefore, both these petition are tagged together and they are disposed of by this common order.

So for as the revision petition filed by Mst. Sarbati is concerned, suffice it to say that in view of the recent decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another, that u/s 125 Cr.P.C. the wife means a lawfully married wife. That means only a lawfully married wife will be entitled to maintenance. In the aforesaid case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have interpreted the expression ''wife appearing in Section 125 Cr.P.C. and it has been interpreted to mean only a legally wedded wife, and not an illegitimate wife. It was observed that the legislature while enacting Section 125 Cr.P.C. has recognised maintenance to illegitimate child and deliberately excluded the illegitimate wife. That clearly shows that illegitimate wife is not entitled to maintenance. In this view of the matter there is no merit in the revision petition filed by Mst. Sarbati and the same is rejected.

So far as the petitioner u/s 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Ram Chandra for grant of maintenance to illegitimate child Surendra of a sum of Rs. 75/- is concerned, there is no illegality committed by both the courts below. Section 125 clearly recognises that a maintenance can be granted to legitimate child and illegitimate child who is incapable of maintaining himself. Thus, the grant of maintenance to Surendra against Ram Chandra is well justified. As such there is no merit in this petition also.

In the result, I both the petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.