1. Revision petitioner is the respondent in MC 18 of 1983 of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class Court, Trivandrum. Respondents 2 and 3 filed MC 18 of 1983 claiming maintenance from the revision petitioner. Learned Magistrate awarded maintenance to the 3rd respondent at the rate of Rs. 90/-per mensem. Maintenance was refused to the 2nd respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 filed Criminal R P. 65 of 1984 before the Sessions Court, Trivandrum. The learned Sessions Judge held that there was valid marriage between the second respondent and the revision petitioner and that at the time of that marriage no previous marriage was subsisting between revision petitioner and Vijaya Selvi as contended by him.

2. For the sake of convenience the position of the parties as it stood before the trial court is followed in the discussions hereunder. The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner was married by the respondent on 14-9-1973, that a child (second petitioner) was born to them in the wedlock, that the respondent has failed to maintain them, that they do not have sufficient means to maintain themselves and that therefore they are entitled to maintenance. Resp