In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-1874 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:21.1.2010 Mann Singh and another .....Petitioners v. Surinder Kaur and others .....Respondents .... Present: Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... S.S. Saron, J. On a petition filed by the respondents under Sections 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda vide order dated 15.1.2009 (Annexure-P.1) granted interim maintenance to the extent of Rs.1,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.700/- each to respondents No.2 and 3 from the date of application till disposal of the main petition. The petitioners aggrieved against the said order filed a revision petition and the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated 19.5.2009 (Annexure-P.2) has dismissed the same. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have filed the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that respondent No.1 is legally wedded wife of one Baljit Singh and the marriage of respondent No.1 was solemnized with said Baljit Singh in 1975. Out of the said marriage, respondent No.1 and Baljit Singh have two children i.e. a son and a daughter. The said marriage is still subsisting. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner No.1 only had illicit relations Cr. Misc. No.M-1874 of 2010 [2] with respondent No.1 and there is no marriage subsisting between them. Even the children i.e. respondents No.2 and 3 are an outcome of the illicit relationship. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner No.1 is not liable to pay any maintenance to respondent No.1. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the learned Courts below have granted only interim maintenance in pursuance of the impugned orders dated 15.1.2009 and 19.5.2009. The rights and liabilities of the parties to pay maintenance is still to be determined. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has referred to case law wherein the husband had solemnized the second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage. It was held that even though second marriage was illegal and void, the second wife was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. This, however, is subject to final decision that would be reached at. For the present the only interim maintenance having been granted would not warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. January 21, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*