16] The judgment and decree dated 20 October 2010, was not even in existence when the learned ASJ made a impugned judgment and order on 11 October 2002. In any case, there is no question of non suiting the petitioner on the basis of such a subsequent development. As held in case of Badshah (supra), the respondent cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong and to say that the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C., even though, there is no material on record to establish that the petitioner married the respondent with full knowledge about the subsistence of his first marriage with Anusayabai. In Badshah (supra), under similar circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that at least for purposes of section 125 of Cr.P.C. , such wife is required to be treated as a legally wedded wife of the respondent. In support of such reasoning, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has adopted a purposive interpretation by reference to ' social justice adjudication ' or ' social context adjudication ' rather than the usual 'adversarial approach'. The learned ASJ in making the impugned judgment and order, having failed to apply ' social context adjudication ' or ' social justice adjudication ' approach, the impugned judgment and order warrants interference.
