AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Regupathi, J.—The petition for maintenance has been filed by the wife and the two children. The learned Magistrate, after conducting
enquiry, awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/- for the wife and Rs.500/- each for the two children.
Aggrieved against that, a revision had been field before the Appellate Forum and the same was dismissed. Subsequently, the present petition has
been filed before this Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that the first respondent/wife is the second wife of the petitioner. The first respondent
married the petitioner knowingly that the petitioner is living with the first wife. Under such circumstances, the marriage of the petitioner with the first
respondent has to be treated as a void marriage and she cannot be construed as a wife at all and she is not entitled for maintenance.
It is further submitted that at the time when the petitioner was living with the first respondent, a property has been purchased and registered in
her name. Moreover, the petitioner is working as an attender and earning a meager salary. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is
erroneous and at any rate, the amount ordered to be paid is also unreasonable.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that after obtaining permission from the first wife, as she was sick, the second marriage
was performed for the purpose of looking after the children of the first wife. When the petitioner was living with the first respondent, two children
were also born to the petitioner.
I have perused the materials available on record and submissions made. In a case reported in Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga Vs.
Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga, , it has been held that permanent alimony and maintenance can be granted, eventhough, the marriage of a
spouse has been declared null and void u/s 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1952. Under such circumstances, it cannot be construed that the
marriage of the first petitioner is void. Moreover, though the order has been passed on 19.05.2003, nothing has been paid to the respondent till
today, in view of the stay granted by this Court.
Admittedly, the petitioner was living with the first respondent and has given birth to two children. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after giving
sufficient opportunity, has come to the conclusion and ordered maintenance of the amount aforementioned. In the revision, it has been confirmed
by the lower appellate Court. The petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. though there is a specific bar prohibiting the second revision
petition indirectly u/s 482 Cr.P.C. I do not find any merit in this petition and accordingly, the petition is dismissed.