JUDGMENT

Jyoti Mulimani, J. - Revision petition is posted for Admission after notice to respondent.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Family Court.

3. The order dated 20.01.2015 passed by the Additional Judge, Family Court, Mysuru in C.Misc.317/2011 is called in question in this revision petition whereby, learned Judge has passed the order directing respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.4,500/- per month to petitioner from the date of petition. It is this order which is called in question on various grounds as set out in this petition.

4. Sri.Manish Aradya, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the order of the Family Court suffers from serious infirmity and the same is liable to be set aside. He submitted that the Family Court has failed to appreciate oral and documentary evidence available on record.

Next, he contended that there is no relationship of husband and wife between petitioner and respondent. There are no materials to show that the marriage was performed on 12.12.2010. Counsel submitted that claim petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

A further submission was