IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2072 of 2007 SHAHINA KAMAR Versus RAM KUMAR @ RIYAZUDDIN ----------- 4 05.12.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite party. What would be status of the alleged second wife during the subsistence of first marriage was the core question before the Court below while deciding the dispute in question. The petitioner claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the opposite party, had filed a case claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it was her case that during subsistence of her marriage, the opposite party husband had contacted a second marriage by embracing claim with a view .to give legal outfit to such second marriage. That aspect of the matter with the help of evidence both oral and documentary had been gone into and the Court below has found that the story of conversion of the opposite party in Islam was not established beyond doubt and further that the petitioner herself was drawing pension being the widow of a Bank employee namely, Aftab Jamir, an employee of the Panjab National Bank. That apart, the Court below has found obvious discrepancy in the story of conversion in Islam incorporated on a stamp paper. Ext. 3 which itself has been found to be an ante dated document on the ground that it was sold by the stamp vendor on 23.6.2000 but contained recital in the date of 21.2.1993. The Court has further taken into account the binding - 2 - precedent of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Mudgal and others v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR1995 Supreme Court 1531 that second marriage after conversion of Islam during the subsistence of the first marriage would be itself void. All these vivid considerations in a reasoned order running of 22 pages passed by the Court below in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for holding that the petitioner was not legally wedded wife of the opposite party and thus not entitled to be paid the amount of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, does not require any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional power. That being so, this Civil Revision application is wholly misconceived and is hereby dismissed. Let the lower court records be sent back to the Court below. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)