Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51012 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2418 of 2024 Revisionist :- Smt Mamta And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mithilesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Notice to opposite party No.2 has been served personally but none turned on his behalf. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to allow this revision and set aside the order dated 12.2.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Court No.4 Agra in Maintenance Case No. 314 of 2017 (Smt. Mamta Vs. Shiv Kumar Urf Gajendra) under section 125 Cr.P.C, Police Station Etmadpur, District Agra. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that in this case the revisionist No.1 is wife of opposite party No.2 and the revisionist No.2 is his son. It is further submitted that the opposite party No.2 neglected to maintain her and her son that was the reason she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P. C before the learned court for maintenance. The learned trial court decided the case vide order dated 12.2.2024 but refused to grant maintenance in favour of revisionist No.1, the wife but granted the amount of maintenance in favour of revisionist No.2, the minor son amounting to Rs.8000/-but this amount is also not paid by the opposite party No.2. It is also submitted that the opposite party No.2 had wedded wife at the time of marriage with the revisionist No.1 but this fact was concealed by him, therefore,revisionist No.1 cannot be said to have married with him with the knowledge of previous marriage. The learned trial court did not consider this fact but refused to grant maintenance in her favour, therefore, request to set aside the order of learned trial court to the extent and to allow this revision on merit as aforesaid. Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer as aforesaid. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A for the State, perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that opposite party No.2 was already married with some other lady named Sadhana and there was no divorce between the two but later on the present revisionist No.1 also married with the opposite party No.2 and revisionist No.2 the son was born with the wedlock. This fact was well considered by the learned trial court while deciding the issue no.1 and 2 which was framed in this regard. Since the revisionist No.1 cannot be said to be legally wedded wife of opposite party No.2 in the life time of his first wife without having divorce between them, therefore, she cannot be said to be entitled for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. So far as revisionist No.2 the son said to be born with wedlock of revisionist No.1 and opposite party No.2 is concerned is entitled for maintenance as provided under section 125(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Therefore, the order passed by learned court cannot be said to be illegal and it does not suffer any impropriety but is sound. The amount of the maintenance granted in favour of revisionist No.2 is also sufficient for maintenance. So far as the submission of learned counsel for recovery of maintenance allowance is concerned, she may move in this regard before the learned trial court for recovery of allowance of maintenance Accordingly, this revision is dismissed as being devoid of merit. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 G.S Digitally signed by :- GHAN SHYAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad