S.W. Puranik, J.
1. Both these revisions are directed against the same judgment arising out of Criminal Revision Application No. 15/83 decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 11-7-1980. Hence both these applications are disposed of by common order.
2. These applications relate to maintenance proceedings between husband and wife. The Criminal Revision Application No. 276/80 is preferred by Smt. Kamlabai w/o Laxmanrao Sarode, the alleged wife of non-applicant Laxmanrao while Criminal Application No. 452/80 under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is preferred by the husband Laxmanrao against his alleged wife Kamlabai and daughter Ku. Geeta. Initially Smt. Kamlabai along with her minor daughter Geeta had preferred proceedings under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code against Laxmanrao claiming maintenance from him on the ground that she was the legally married wife of Laxmanrao; that Geeta is the daughter born out of the said wedlock and that Kamlabai being unable to maintain herself as well as her daughter, she had a right to claim maintenance from her husband Laxmanrao.
3. The said maintenance proceedings were contested by the husband Laxmanrao and the trial Court was conducted before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 5th Court, Nagpur, vide, Criminal Case No. 29/78. The learned Magistrate noted the pleadings of both the parties and recorded the evidence adduced by them and on hearing their Counsel, came to the conclusion that Kamlabai was the legally wedded wife of Laxmanrao; that she is unable to maintain herself; that she has no source of income and that she and her minor daughter Geetabai are entitled to maintenance as claimed. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 21-11-1979 granted Rs. 150/- per month as maintenance to wife Kamlabai and Rs. 50/- per month as maintenance to the minor daughter Geetabai.
4. Laxmanrao the husband, felt aggrieved by the said order of maintenance as his contention was that Kamlabai is not at all legally wedded wife. He contended that he had married one Muktabai and had never divorced her; that Kamlabai was expressing her love and affection for Laxmanrao, but they were never married. His further contention was that Geetabai is not his legitimate daughter. The husband Laxmanrao's criminal revision was registered as Criminal Revision No. 15/80 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge at Nagpur. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that even though Kamlabai has married Laxmanrao by Pat., Kamlabai has not been able to establish that the earlier wife of Laxmanrao viz. Muktabai was divorced. The Sessions Judge, therefore, held that Kamlabai's marriage with Laxmanrao was during the subsistence of the first marriage and, therefore, illegal. He, however, concluded from the material which was already on record that the finding of the trial Court that Geetabai was the daughter born out of the wedlock of Laxmanrao and Kamlabai was correct. However, in view of the illegality of the said marriage, the minor child Geetabai was the illegitimate daughter of Laxmanrao. Lastly the Sessions Judge held, Kamlabai not being the legally wedded wife, was not entitled to claim maintenance while under the provisions of section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, the illegitimate child is entitled to claim maintenance and accordingly granted maintenance of Rs. 50/- per month to Geetabai original applicant No. 2.
5. Kamlabai the original applicant No. 1 felt aggrieved by this order of the Sessions Judge and has preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 276 of 1980 inter alia contending that the findings of the trial Court were just and proper and needed to interference before the revisional Court of the Sessions Judge. She, therefore, contended that she was entitled to the original grant of maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month for herself also.
6. The husband Laxmanrao felt aggrieved by the revisional order of grant of maintenance to Geetabai on the ground that she was the illegitimate daughter of his. He, therefore, preferred Criminal Application No. 452 of 1980 under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court and contesting the concurrent findings of both the courts below.
7. It is well established by the dictum of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 81 Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh and another, and : 1977CriLJ1891 Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana, that where the Criminal Procedure Code itself bars a second revision after the one opted by the parties, then resort should not be taken to invoke inherent powers of the Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code or the power of Superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There has to be a finality to litigation at one stage or the other and the Legislature in its wisdom has preferred to give one opportunity of revision after the trial Court's order is passed. The Supreme Court has however laid down that in a given set of circumstances if there is patent miscarriage of justice at the hands of the lower revisional Court, the inherent powers can still be invoked to set right the wrong done.
8. In the instant case, Ku. S.B. Vyas, Advocate appeared for Kamlabai, the wife of original applicant No. 1, while Shri R.S. Lambat, Advocate, appeared for the husband Laxmanrao - the original non-applicant. Both the Counsel were heard at length. Shri G.A. Paunikar, the learned Asstt. Government Pleader and Public Procedure also assisted the Court. The Counsel pursuaded the Court to go through the judgments of both the courts below.
9. This High Court has by a decision of the Division Bench taken the view that proceedings under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code can be availed of by a wife only if she legally wedded to the husband. If, however, the said marriage is null and void and in contravention of the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, the said marriage being illegal, such wife cannot claim maintenance under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. Another Division Bench of this Court in a recent decision has, however, taken a contrary view. The Division Bench in the said ruling has held that when the husband and wife are accepted as husband and wife by the community and the Society at large after they go through the ceremonies of a marriage and they were living together as husband and wife and beget children out of such a wedlock, then merely on the technical ground that the first wife's marriage was subsisting at the time of second marriage should not come into the way of second wife's claim for maintenance. It was observed that the provisions of section 125 Criminal Procedure Code are socio-economic in nature, to give speedy justice to the down trodden and to avoid vagrancy amongst the poor and helpless citizens. The said matter, however, is referred to Full Bench in view of the differing views. Be it as it may, in the present case, the revision preferred by Kamlabai cannot be accepted on the established legal principles. Firstly, the concurrent findings given by the trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court cannot be disturbed in this revision. Secondly, in a revisional jurisdiction, unless patent illegality or grossly erroneous order is pointed out, the revisional Court would be slow in interfering with the same. No such grounds have been made out by the applicant Kamlabai in the instant case. The reasonings of the learned Sessions Judge are valid and proper and call for no interference.
10. The other connected Criminal Application No. 452/80 is preferred by husband Laxmanrao, through Shri R.S. Lambat, Advocate. He was at pains to persuade the Court to alter the findings of fact given by both the courts below. His contention was that there was no evidence to show that Kamlabai was the legally or illegally wedded wife of Laxmanrao at all. The said contention, however, cannot be accepted inasmuch as on perusal of these orders, we find that not only Kamlabai and her relatives were examined by her in support of her contention, but she had also examined the close relatives of Laxmanrao who were also present at the said wedlock. In these circumstance, the findings of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous. In any case, it is not a matter where inherent powers could be invoked to interfere with such findings. In the result, therefore, both the Criminal Revision Application No. 276/80 as well as Criminal Application No. 452 of 1980 do not deserve to be entertained. Hence the following order.
11. Both the applications aforesaid are dismissed. No order as to costs.