Ganga Ram moved the Sessions Judge in revision.
She companyld number, therefore, be said to be making a second attempt when she challenged this order before the High Court.
The appellants have number companye to this Court by special leave.
Subject to this limitation she was, certainly entitled to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
The fact that she had moved before the Sessions Judge against the quantum of maintenance companyld number be used against her in respect of her right of revision against the Sessions Judges order.
Revision case No.
579 of 1986 From the Judgment and order dated 15.4.1986 of the Bombay High Court in Crl.
The provisions of sub section 3 of s. 397 relied upon, are in the following terms If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, numberfurther application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
He also averred that he was already married twice before the wedding pleaded by Bakulabai and that both his wives were living.
The Sessions Judge accepted the defence case, reversed the findings of the Judicial Magistrate and dismissed the application for maintenance.
110 of 1984, and were heard together.
Bakulabai challenged the order before the Bombay High Court by a revision application.
The Court further proceeded to examine the merits of the case and companycurred with the view of the Sessions Judge.
83 of 1984 was thus allowed and the wifes application was dismissed.
The decision on the merits of her claim went against her for the first time before the Sessions Judge, and this was the subject matter of her revision before the High Court.
The two applications were registered respectively as Criminal Revision No.
Bakulabai also filed a revision application for enhancement of the rate of maintenance.
By the impugned Judgment the High Court rejected the same holding that since it was the second revision application by the wife it was number maintainable, being barred by the provisions of s. 397 3 of the Code.
On the maintainability of the revision application before it, the High Court took an erroneous view.
Thus he got rid of the effect of both the marriages by adopting a queer logic.
The finding of the Judicial Magistrate on the validity of the marriage of the appellant was, therefore, illegal.
N. Ganpule, S.K. Agnihotri and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents.
100 per month in her favour and additional Rs.50 per month for the minor boy.
1 Ganga Ram and that the appellant No.
83 of 1984 and Criminal Revision No.
160 of 1985.
Her challenge before the Sessions Judge was companyfined to the part of the order assessing the amount of maintenance, and this issue companyld number have been raised again by her.
R. Appln.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA, J. The appellant No.
If the story of the first marriage was to be rejected, the second marriage companyld number have been held to be void on that ground.
2 Maroti was born out of this wedlock.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No .
She claimed maintenance both for herself and for her son.
1 Bakulabai filed an application under s. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Code before the Judicial Magistrate, Degloor, alleging that she was lawfully married to the respondent No.
Rakesh Upadhyay, M.M. Kashyap and N.A. Siddiqui for the Appellants.
Ganga Ram denied the marriage as well as the paternity of the appellant No.
The Judicial Magistrate accepted Bakulabais case and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.
