1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.2291 of 2002 Sow. Sakhubai w/o Machindra Waghmare, age 37 years, Occ household, r/o Parali, Tq. Parali, Dist. Beed, now residing at Pendgaon, Tq. & District Beed. ...PETITIONER (ORIGINAL APPLICANT) VERSUS Machindra s/o Kisan Waghmare, Age: 45 years, Occ: Service, r/o Pali, Tq. & Dist Beed. ...RESPONDENT (Original non applicant) ... None for the petitioner. Respondent(sole) served through paper publication. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:27/8/2009 ... P.C.: 1. The applicant herein, Sakhubai, claimed to be wife of respondent Machindra. Since there was bickering and controversies between the husband and wife, maintenance proceedings were initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. being Criminal 2 Application No.142/2000. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, after hearing both the sides was pleased to allow the application and directed the husband/respondent herein to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month from the date application dt.7.6.2000. 2. Said order was challenged by the husband before the learned Additional District Judge and the learned Additional District Judge in Criminal Revision No.88/2001, on analysing facts and more particularly, on assessing the evidence, came to the conclusion that the applicant herein Sakhubai is not a legally wedded wife and, consequently, she is not entitled for maintenance and the order of grant of monthly allowance of Rs.1,000/- by the judgment dt.26.9.2001, was set aside. 3. The learned Judge found that in the maintenance petition itself Sakhubai has admitted that the husband had first marriage performed with Vimalabai, resident of Kukane, taluka Newasa. It was the husband who allegedly represented that he took divorce from said Vimala as she became mentally ill. The opponent claimed that there were extramarital relations between himself and Sakhubai and out of such relations one son and two daughters were also born. However, he denied having undergone marital ceremony. 3 4. The evidence adduced by the wife of the priest indicated that there were religious ceremony - Saptpadi was performed and the marriage was solemnized. 5. It is worth to note that mere undergoing ceremony of marriage by itself is not sufficient to accept the marriage to be a valid marriage. It is more than clear that on the date of such marriage, either party had a spouse living, consequently, the second marriage becomes illegal and it will not be attracting provisions for grant of monthly allowance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is a matter of record that Vimalabai was alive at the material time. There is nothing to indicate that there was a customary divorce to said Vimalabai. The judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Khemchand Omprakash Sharma V. State of Gujrat ( 2000 (3) SCC 753) needs consideration. 6. Though there were allegations of infidelity of Sakhubai, however, since the marital status itself is under cloud, I need not to advert to the said allegations. The order passed by the learned second Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, on 24.9.2002, therefore, does not require any interference. 4 Criminal Application No.2291/2002 is dismissed. Rule discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/2291-02crapl ...