IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.661 of 2006 BISHWANATH THAKUR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4. 26.8.2008. This application has been filed against the order dated 7.7.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga in Maintenance Case No.71 of 2003 thereby the petitioner has been directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 for her maintenance as well as for maintenance of two minor children. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. In course of the submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the opposite party no.2 is the second wife of the petitioner and the first wife is still alive. In view of that, the marriage of the opposite party no.2 with petitioner is void and, accordingly, she is not entitled to get maintenance. In support of it, he has relied upon two decisions reported in 1988 Supreme Court 648 and the other 2006 (1) PLJR 668. It is further submitted that the children are not party to the proceeding and, therefore, no interim maintenance can be granted to the children. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that provision of section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice as well as beneficial to woman and children in order to protect them from starvation and vagrancy. Therefore even the second wife is also entitled to get maintenance. In support of it, he has relied upon a - 2 - N.H./ decision reported in 1999 Supreme Court 3348. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties. This order is in respect of ad interim maintenance, the main application is still pending. In this view of the matter, the question of grant of maintenance to the second wife i.e. opposite party is left open to be decided in the main application. However, the admitted position is that the opposite party has to maintain two minor children who is said to be born out of wedlock with the petitioner. It is true that the children are not party to the proceeding. However, on perusal of paragraph-16 of the petition, it is quite clear that the maintenance has been sought even for her two children who are living with her. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances and without prejudice to the merit of the case it is quite clear that at least the two children are entitled to get ad interim maintenance in order to pull on their life. Accordingly, this application is rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.1500/- p.m. instead of Rs.2000/- p.m. as directed by the lower court. The court below is directed to dispose of the case within four months of receipt of this order. ( Ghanshyam Prasad )