K. Hema, J.

A petition was filed by the petitioner herein before the Magistrates Court, claiming maintenance to herself under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short). The application was allowed and respondent was directed to pay an amount of Rs.500/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner as his wife from the date of petition. The said order was challenged in revision before the Sessions Court. It was allowed, setting aside the order of the Magistrate's Court. The legality, propriety and correctness of the said order are challenged in this revision.

2. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows: The respondent married petitioner at Vythiri Sub Registrar's Office, Their's was a love marriage. They executed an agreement of marriage also, as Exhibit P1. They lived as husband and wife in several places and a child was born in the wedlock. The child is in the custody of the respondent. The respondent was originally working in a parallel College and later he obtained a job in a Bank. Thereafter, their relationship was strained. They separated after a long period of cohabitation as husband and wife. The respondent thereafter, neglected petitioner and he did not maintain her, though he had sufficient income. He refused to show the child to petitioner, but she meets the child with permission of his parents, once in a year. Petitioner is unable to maintain herself and she claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from the respondent.

3. The respondent filed a counter statement. The marriage is disputed. It was contended that the parties belong to different religions; petitioner is a Christian whereas respondent is a Hindu. They never got married and no marriage was registered, as alleged. They did not live as husband and wife and no child was born in the alleged wedlock. All the allegations were denied. The respondent's liability to maintain the petitioner is also disputed.

4. Both sides adduced evidence before the court below. Oral evidence is that of petitioner and respondent as PW1 and CPW1. Exhibits P1 to P9 were marked on the side of the petitioner.

5. After analysis of the evidence, learned Magistrate found that there was a long cohabitation between the parties after execution of Exhibit P1-marriage agreement and that was enough to prove marriage. But, learned Sessions Judge held that the only claim made by petitioner is that the marriage was performed from the registrar's Office by execution of Exhibit PI agreement and that there was no pleading or evidence with respect to any "marriage ceremony". The court placed reliance upon the decision reported in Punnakkal Sreedharan vs. Vellai Padmini (1992 (2) KLT SN6 P5 = 1992 (3) ILR Ker. 572) and it was found that execution of a registered document and making declaration therein to live as husband and wife would not confer upon the parties, status as husband and wife. Those findings are mainly challenged in this revision.

6. On a reading of the judgment of the Sessions Court, it is clear that the court misread the case of the petitioner. Though the petitioner did not have a specific case in the petition that the marriage was conducted as per Exhibit P1, the Sessions Court held that such a claim was made by her. Though, on the facts of this case, even without proof of any marriage ceremony, it would be possible to enter a finding that the parties are husband, and wife the court below rejected the claim on the ground that there was no evidence for any marriage ceremony.

7. The findings of the revisional court are erroneous and contrary to the pleadings and evidence. I shall elaborate: The respondent admitted at the time of evidence that the parties were living together as husband and wife and that a child was also born in such relationship. Even though die respondent had denied marriage, cohabitation, and even paternity of the child and its custody as per counter statement he admitted in cross-examination that the child born to the parties i