VARGHESE KALLIATH, J.

Our learned brother, Bhat, J. doubted the correctness of the decision reported in Abdul Rahimankutty v. Aysha Beevi, 1959 Ker LT 1077 : (AIR 1960 Ker 101). He referred the matter for the decision of a Division Bench. Accordingly these cases come up before us.

2. An interesting and to some extent hitherto not very well indicated question in Muhammadan Law arises in these cases. Whether the marriage of a Muhammadan male with a muhammadan female pregnant through some unknown person is valid, void or irregular ? A subsidiary question that has to be answered is whether the Muslims of Malabar area or for that matter any part of the State are presumed to follow Hanafi Law or Shafie Law.

3. To make the case intelligible it is desirable to call attention to the brief facts. These are the facts. Crl.R.P. No. 278 of 1981 is by a wife in a proceeding under S. 125 of the Cri.P.C. She was married to the respondent and she gave birth to a child. The respondent divorced the petitioner. He neglected to maintain her and the child. The petitioner claimed maintenance for herself and for her child from the respondent.

4. The respondent contended that there was no real marriage except a semblance of marriage. The petitioner was pregnant by whoredom, at the time of marriage and the child born on 28-4-1973 within four months after marriage is not his child. He also contended that at any rate, he is not liable to pay the excessive amount claimed by the petitioner as maintenance from him.

5. The trial Court evaluated the evidence adduced before the Court and held that the petitioner was pregnant when she contracted the marriage with the respondent. Nevertheless, the trial Court awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month to the petitioner. No amount was awarded as maintenance for the child, obviously for the reason that the respondent was found to be, not the father of the child. The respondent challenged the order before the District Court, Kozhikode. The petitioner also filed a revision against the order refusing to award maintenance to the child and against the quantum of maintenance allowance fixed. The learned District Judge heard both the revision petitions together and passed a common order. He held that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is invalid and so the petitioner is not entitled to any maintenance. The learned District Judge also held that in view of the proved fact that the respondent is not the father of the child thereby clearly indicating that the respondent is not responsible for the illegitimate pregnancy of the petitioner, the revision petition challenging the refusal to award maintenance to the child has no merit. The petitioner now challenges the order of the District Judge by these proceedings - Crl.R.P. No. 278/81 and Crl.M.C. 518 of 1981.

6. Section 125(1) of the Cri.P.C. runs thus :-

"125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.

(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain -

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,

a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct :

Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in Clause (b) to make such allowance until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate