JUDGMENT : M. Zothankhuma, J. Heard Ms. S. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband. Also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned Legal Aid counsel for the respondent No. 2/wife and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No. 1. No one appears for the respondent No. 3, who is the alleged second husband of the respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner/husband has put to challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati, in F.C. (Crl.) No. 32/2008, granting maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondent No. 2/wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., on the ground that the respondent No. 2/wife has married her second husband, i.e., respondent No. 3. 3. On a query raised by us to Ms. K. Phukan, learned Legal Aid counsel for the respondent No. 2, as to whether the respondent No. 2 had married the respondent No. 3, the Legal Aid counsel submits that she has not been able to communicate with the respondent No. 2, as she does not know where the respondent No. 2 resides, besides not having been provided the mobile number of the respondent No. 2. Though the appellant’s counsel has prayed for adjournment on the ground that she has not been able to trace her file, we are inclined to dispose of the appeal due to its long pendency and the simple issue involved in this appeal. 4. The issue that has to be decided in this case is whether the respondent No. 2/wife has married the respondent No. 3. Section 125 of the Cr.P.C provides that if any person having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself, a Magistrate of the 1 st Class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or child. The explanation to Section 125 of the Cr.P.C provides that a wife does not include a person who has re-married. Thus, if the respondent No. 2 had re-married the respondent No. 3, the question of payment of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C could not arise. 5. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner/husband and the respondent No. 2 did not have a child during their marriage or afterward also. Thus, if the respondent No. 2 had re-married the respondent No. 3, the question of payment of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C could not arise. 5. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner/husband and the respondent No. 2 did not have a child during their marriage or afterward also. The only problem that arises is with regard to whether there has been service of notice upon the respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3. In this regard, the orders passed by this Court on 18.01.2012, 18.04.2012 and 13.08.2012 are reproduced herein below as follows: “ 18.01.2012 Heard Mr.S.B.Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that notice has been duly served on respondent No. 2 as indicated in the office Note. Office Note indicates that one Mr. M.Rahman, leanred counsel had entered appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2 by filing vakalatnama. He has not appeared today. In respect of respondent No. 3, the petitioner took steps twice, first on 1.6.11 which was returned unserved. Second step was taken on 5.8.11 in which it has been shown that the said notice was received on behalf of respondent No 3 by respondent No.2 i.e. Mrs. Amina Begum. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the impugned order dated 19.11.10 was passed, the said respondent No. 2 got married to respondent No. 3 and as such, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. All these aspects would be considered at the time hearing. However, considering the facts as stated above, until further orders, the impugned order dated 19.11.10 passed in FC (Crl) No. 32/ 2008 U/S 125 Cr.P.C. and the Execution order dated 22.12.2010 shall remain suspended. This interim order will be reconsidered again as and when either of the respondents makes an appearance before this court. List again on 6.2.2012.” “ 18-04-2012 Heard Mr. S. B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. B. S. Sinha, learned Addl. PP, Assam. Service in respect of respondent No. 3 is not completed. List this matter before the Lawazima Court for verification and report regarding service in respect of respondent No. 3. List this matter on 08.05.2012. Also heard Mr. M. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. B. S. Sinha, learned Addl. PP, Assam. Service in respect of respondent No. 3 is not completed. List this matter before the Lawazima Court for verification and report regarding service in respect of respondent No. 3. List this matter on 08.05.2012. Interim order shall continue.” “ 13.08.2012 Heard Ms. SB Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice upon respondent No.3 has already been served and he has appeared through the learned counsel. Notice upon respondent No.2 was also sent by registered post as well as through court process. Registered notice has returned unserved. However, the notice sent by District Magistrate has been received by the wife of the respondent No.2. Hence, notice upon respondent No. 2 is complete. Respondent No. 1 is the State. In this way, the case is ready as regards service. List the case for admission on 3.9.2012. Interim order shall continue.” 6. A perusal of the above orders leads us to believe that notice had been served upon the respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3. In any event, this case has been pending in this Court for the last 15 years, only because no one has appeared for the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 3 subsequent to the order dated 13.08.2012. The learned Legal Aid counsel for the respondent No. 2, who has been appointed only on 25.07.2025, has not been able to communicate with the respondent No. 2. 7. The above being said, we have noticed that the Single Bench of this Court, vide order dated 18.01.2012, had suspended the operation of the impugned order dated 19.11.2010, passed in F.C. (Crl.) No. 32/2008 and the Execution Order dated 22.12.2010. As such, despite the respondent No. 2 not receiving any maintenance since January 2012, in view of the order passed by this Court on 18.01.2012, the respondent No. 2 has not made any attempt to vacate the interim order passed by the Single Bench of this Court. This gives rise to an inference that the respondent No. 2 may not have any explanation to the contrary, with regard to the allegation that she had re- married the respondent No. 3, besides not being interested in receiving monthly maintenance from the petitioner. This gives rise to an inference that the respondent No. 2 may not have any explanation to the contrary, with regard to the allegation that she had re- married the respondent No. 3, besides not being interested in receiving monthly maintenance from the petitioner. Keeping all the above in view and due to the fact that 15 years have lapsed from the date of filing of the criminal revision petition, we intend to dispose of the present case, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and the pleadings therein. The criminal revision petition has clearly stated that the respondent No. 2 had re-married during the pendency of the Family Court proceedings and this has also been reflected in the evidence of D.W. 2. 8. On considering all the above, we are of the view that as there is no averment or evidence to the effect that the respondent No. 2 had not married the respondent No. 3, the impugned judgment and order dated 19.11.2010 is held to be not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the learned Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati, in F.C. (Crl.) No. 32/2008, is hereby set aside. 9. The appeal is allowed. 10. Send back the TCR.