ORDER
Anoop V. Mohta, J.
1. The petitioner/husband has challenged the reversal order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloll, dated 3-7-1996, whereby the respondent No. 1’s revision application has been allowed and the judgment and order of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biloli, dated 16-9-1995 was set aside. That resulted into grant of order in favour of the respondent/wife to pay Rs. 400/- per month for her maintenance from the date of application i.e. 11-2-1993.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner basically contends that the respondent being the second wife, she is not entitled for maintenance. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biloli, therefore, was correct.
3. After considering rival submissions, undisputed position on record is that on earlier occasion the respondent had filed application for maintenance i.e. Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 124 of 1979. The said matter was compromised on 15-7-1972. On second occasion, another application i.e. Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 31 of 1972 was compromised on 9-4-1973. The parties agreed to behave properly as per this compromise. Thereafter, as there was no change in the behaviour, therefore, another application is filed. Now for the first time in this Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 1993, the petitioner/husband has made averment in his reply that the respondent is not legally wedded wife. He led evidence of two witnesses, one is stated to be first wife and another the daughter of first wife in support of the said defence. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biloli, therefore, based on this oral evidence, rejected the maintenance application filed by the respondent.
4. The revisional Court, however, reversed the said order, according to me rightly. The conduct of the parties in such matters always play very dominant role, specially when it relates to relationship of husband and wife. The petitioner/husband should have, in a given case on the first occasion, raised the issue about the legality of the marriage with the respondent. This is one of those cases where admittedly as many as on two occasions, between the same parties, though there was compromise entered into, there was no such plea raised at all. Therefore, parties admittedly agreed and acted upon the valid relationship was husband and wife.
5. The revisional Court is further right in holding that there is no documentary proof placed on record to support the said contention. The oral evidence in this background of two compromises between the parties, according to me, goes to the root of the matter, in a sense oral evidence cannot prevail over the compromises entered into between the parties on two occasions, basically during the period from 1971 to 1973. The defence as raised for the first time in the year 1993 is definitely after-thought.
6. Taking all this into account, I see, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of granting maintenance to the respondent/wife from the date of application. In view of this, present writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.