KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

A destituted wife and her child, both in distress, claiming maintenance from the husband/father are the petitioners in M.C. No. 173 of 1992 on the files of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the 1st petitioner-wife, both the husband and wife are Hindu Nadars and they were joined in wedlock in January, 1982. During the subsistence of the said marriage, she became pregnant and during the fourth month of pregnancy she was taken to her house and was neglected thereafter. She gave birth to the 2nd petitioner on 8-3-1983. Unable to maintain herself and the child, she claimed maintenance for herself and the child from the counter-petitioner-husband who had sufficient means to provide maintenance to them. The husband denied the existence of marriage between the parties as also paternity of the child.

2. The Family Court framed issues regarding existence of marriage between the parties, entitlement of the 1st petitioner-wife to separate maintenance and the quantum of maintenance. On the side of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner was examined as P.W. 1 and two others were examined as P.Ws. 2 and 3. The counter-petitioner examined himself as C.P.W. 1 and another person was examined as C.P.W. 2 Ext. P1 birth certificate of the 2nd petitioner was proved by P.W. 1 and Ext. D1 extract of the admission register of counter-petitioner was proved by CPW 1. On going through the evidence, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the counter-petitioner and that the 2nd petitioner was born in the wedlock. It was also found that since the counter-petitioner had denied the existence of marriage and also paternity of the child which tantamount to cruelty, the 1st petitioner is entitied for separate maintenance. Hence the Family Court allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month to the wife and Rs. 100/- to the daughter. This appeal is filed by the aggrieved husband/father.

3. It is contended by the appellant that there existed no marriage between the appellant and the 1st respondent and, at any rate, there was no evidence to substantiate the same. According to the appellant, he is a bachelor belonging to Christian Community and he had not married the 1st respondent who is admittedly a Hindu. He also denies the parenthood of the 2nd respondent.

4. Two interesting questions thus arise for consideration in this appeal : 1) Is it necessary to conclusively establish the marriage in order to claim maintenance by a destituted wife from her husband ? 2) What is the impact of an order under S. 125 on the respective status of the parties ? As both the issues are inter-connected, we shall deal with them jointly after analysing the factual position in the case.

5. P.Ws. 1 to 3 have categorically stated regarding the marriage ceremony conducted on 17-1-1982. They have also stated regarding the persons who participated in the marriage, particularly regarding the sister of the appellant and her husband. It is significant in this context to note that the 1st respondent, admittedly, is a close neighbour of the said sister of the appellant. The marriage, according to those witnesses, was performed in the presence of a poojari according to the custom and convention prevailing in their community. True, this is controverted by CPWs. 1 and 2. The appellant maintained that he is a Christian and there could not have been a valid marriage between himself and the 1st respondent in the manner described by her. It may be seen that his claim of being a Christian is solely based on Ext. D1 certificate produced by him wherein it is stated that his community is "Nadar SIUC" actually meant, he was asked what "SIUC" actually meant, he was not in a position to explain. He only stated that he belongs to C.S.I. Christian denomination. Apparently, for someone to prove his community as Christian, he could as well get any number of convincing pieces of evidence regarding his membership in