The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence of marriage and the application of the presumption of legitimacy of children born during the subsistence of the marriage under S.488, Cr. P. C.

1. This revision petition has been preferred by one Kunhiraman Nair against the order of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Manantoddy directing him under S.488, Cr. P. C. to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 30/- to the first respondent-wife and Rs. 15/- to the second respondent, the minor daughter.

2. The respondent's case before the learned Magistrate was that the first respondent is the wife of the revision petitioner and the second respondent is the daughter born to him. The first respondent Annakutty is a Christian following the Roman Catholic faith. Herself and the revision petitioner were friends even from their school days and on 2 61960 their marriage was celebrated in the auditorium at Santha Bhavan at Calicut in the presence of Pw-4 Sundaran Nair, who is a cousin of the revision petitioner and a few others. Flower garlands were exchanged before a lighted lamp and they shook hands and went round the lamp, which according to the respondent are in conformity with a Nair marriage. After the marriage, she was taken by the revision petitioner to his tarwad house and there they lived together till they shifted to another house belonging to her, since the atmosphere in the revision petitioner's tarwad was not congenial to them. Eventually she got pregnant and gave birth to respondent No. 2 in the Manantody Government hospital on 112 1963. The information of the birth of the child was conveyed to the village office and there it was entered in the appropriate register. Ex. P-1 is the certified copy of the extract of the birth register. The fact of her admission in the hospital for confinement was also entered in the register maintained in the hospital. Ex. P-3 is the relevant entry. After confinement she was taken back and they continued their stay in the house where they had shifted from the tarwad house. For about four months they lived together like that. Thereafter a change of attitude was noticed in the revision petitioner and he began to absent himself from the house often times. He also began to behave cruelly towards her and she was not being properly maintained also. On enquiry the respondent found that he had some sort of an attachment with a lady teacher in the Dwaraka U. P. School and that was the cause of his indifference towards her. The respondent therefore had to sell away her property for her day to day expenses and when the money got by the sale of the property was exhausted she was left in the lurch and

do other alternative was left for her, but to resort to the court with the petition under S.488 Cr. P. C. Maintenance was claimed by her at the rate of Rs. 30/- for herself and Rs. 60/- for the child.

3. The revision petitioner in his counter, stated that he had never married the first respondent, but he was friendly with her. He had a caste wife one Ambujakshy, and while himself and Ambujakshy were living together this respondent was employed by him as their domestic servant; but she had ultimately to be dismissed from service for her own immoral conduct, on 16 111961. Her arrears of pay were disbursed to her up-to-date and she was sent away. No child was born to her till that time. The paternity of the second respondent has emphatically been denied by him. His marriage with Ambujakshy subsisted till 4-5-1963. During the subsistence of that alliance it was not legally possible for him to contract another alliance. The respondent was ill disposed to him on account of O. S.78/64, which was a suit filed by him against her for trespass into his house. The trespass was on 17111961.Out of enmity resulting from that suit the respondent, on the advice of her brother Chacko has filed the present petition to insult him and to lower him in the estimation of the public. Learned Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence in the case has come to the conclusion that the respondent was in fact married by the revision petitioner as alleged by her and that they were living together as man and wife and the daughter was born