J.N. BHATT, J.

(1) By this revision petition the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Surat on 12 in Criminal Revision Appli. No. 194/83.

(2) In order to appreciate the merits of this revision resume of the material facts may be shortly stated.

(3) The present petitioner is the original applicant-wife who initiated legal battle by filing ap- plication for her maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code for brief) against the respondent No. 1 original opponent by filing Crimi- nal Miscellaneous Application No. 22 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate F. C. Surat. She inner alia contended that she is a legally wedded wife of the opponent. She was unable to maintain herself and therefore she claimed Rs. 200.00 by way of maintenance.

(4) The opponent appeared and resisted the application for maintenance He denied the aver- ments made in the application for maintenance. According to him the applicant is not his legally wedded wife. Therefore it was contended that the applicant is not entitled to claim maintenance by invoking the aids of the provisos of Section 125 of the Code.

(5) On appreciation of evidence the learned Judicial Magistrate F. C. Surat was pleased to allow the maintenance application partly by awarding Rs. 150.00 towards the maintenance of the applicant-wife therein from the date of the application. Being aggrieved by the said Judg- ment and Order the original opponent-husband questioned its legality and validity by filing Crimi- nal Revision Application No. 194/83 in the Sessions Court at Surat. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to allow the revision petition and the judgment and order awarding maintenance to the wife passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate F. C. was quashed. It was held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the applicant is not legally wedded wife of the opponent and hence she is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code.

(6) Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge the original applicant-wife has now come up before this Court challenging its legality and validity. At the out-set it may be stated that in order to qualify for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code it is incumbent upon the applicant-wife to prove first of all that she is a legally wedded wife. It is the pre-requisite for claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. The expression wife in Section 125 of the Code means legally wedded wife. Therefore in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code the first condition which is required to be satisfied is that the applicant is lawfully married wife of the opposite party. There can be no question of maintenance unless the relation of husband and wife exists between the parties. If the marriage of a woman with a man already having spouse takes place it is complete nullity. The woman having entered into marriage with a married man will not be eligible or qualified for maintenance. This proposition becomes abundantly clear on plain perusal of Section 125 of the Code. However the law which this Court is inclined to take is very much reinforced by the decision rendered in Yamunabai v. Anantrai and reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court.

(7) Though the controversy is circumscribed to narrow compass in the present case it is required to be examined as to whether the present petitioner-original applicant has proved that she is a legally wedded wife or not. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has reached the con- clusion that there was no valid marriage between the parties. It is also held by the learned Addi- tional Sessions Judge that even if the marriage is proved to have been performed the marriage would be void. In the facts of the case the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Additional Ses- sions Judge that there was no valid marriage appears to be quite justified. There is no material worth the candle on record which would call for the interference of this Court in the findings of facts arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has placed strong reliance on the agreement between the parties at Ex. 46. This agree- ment manifestly demonstrate that the applicant was kept as a mistress by the opponent and the re- lationship was also terminating by passing agreement at Ex. 46 whereby the original applicant was paid Rs. 1700.00. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also considered testimonial and documentary evidence on record. Having examined the entire record it is held that the original applicant has failed to establish that she is legally wedded wife of the opponent. This find- ing of fact deserves no interference.

(8) Assuming that the original applicant has entered into a marriage with the original oppo- nent then in that case also it would be a marriage by the original applicant with the opponent who has living spouse and children Therefore alternatively also the second marriage during the life time of the first spouse would also be a nullity Therefore also the original applicant would not be entitled to claim maintenance In fact there is clear cogent evidence on record to hold that original applicant-petitioner herein was kept as a mistress and not as a wife. Therefore the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on this score remains unassailable.

(9) As observed hereinbefore the original applicant has failed to establish that she is a legally wedded wife of the opposite party i.e. the respondent herein. So she is not qualified to earn the award of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There- fore the present petition deserves to be dismissed being totally meritless.

(10 ) (10) In view of the aforesaid discussion the present revision is dismissed Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs Rule is discharged.