BASANT, J.

1. (i) Is the wife in a voidable marriage, annulled under Sec.12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, entitled to claim maintenance under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

(ii) Can the statuary compassion in favour of the woman in distress in a terminated marriage and the legislative anxiety and concern to prevent vagrancy against women persuade courts to being such a woman in an annulled marriage within the sweep of the definition of deemed wife in Explanation (b) to Sec.125 Cr.P.C.?

(iii) Can the changing norms in society evidenced by subsequent statutory instruments persuade the courts to expand entrenched concepts in society?

2. This these and these questions fall for our consideration in this case.

3. We must acknowledge the efforts of Sri. P.K. Mohanan (Palakkad) and Sri. Sunil Nair, the learned counsel for the parties and Dr. Sebastian Champappilly who was requested to assist us as amicus curiae. Resolution of this controversy has, by no means, been easy or simple. A lot of debate, contemplation and discussion had preceded. We do, in fact, offer an apology to the learned counsel that we were obliged to re-open the case and seek their further assistance on a couple of occasions. Before we start the dictation, we place on record our appreciation for the service rendered by the counsel, particularly the painstaking efforts of the amicus curiae-Dr. Sebastian Champappilly.

4. To the vitally relevant, crucial and undisputed facts to start with. The claimant/wife and the respondent/husband (we shall refer to them thus in this judgment) had entered matrimony by formal solemnization in accordance with law on 15/7/2002. They are both Hindus and their marriage had been solemnized due compliance with the requirements of the Hindu Marriage Act. The marriage was short lived. There was acrimony in their matrimony. As early as on 12/11/02 the wife filed an application under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself. In 2003, she filed a further application under Sec.12 (1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of the voidable marriage on the ground that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotence of the respondent/husband. Both these petitions were pending before the Family Court, Kannur. The learned Judge of the Family Court by Ext.P1 order dated 28/1/05 allowed the petition under Sec.12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and declared the marriage to be null and void. By Ext.P2 order which was also passed on the very same date i.e., 28/1/05 the petition filed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. was allowed with effect from 28/1/05 and maintenance was ordered to be paid at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem with effect from the date of the order.

5. We must mention that it is not possible now to ascertain which order (Ext.P1 or P2) was passed earlier. Both were ex parte orders and it is impossible to ascertain now as to which order preceded the other. The fact remains that both Exts.P1 and P2 were accepted by the respondent/husband and the same were not challenged. It may not be inapposite in this context to mention that an earlier application for restitution of conjugal rights appears to have been filed by the respondent/husband before the Family Court, Palakkad, and the same-O.P.No.1054/06, was dismissed by the Family Court by the subsequent order dated 23/6/06. That order was passed making specific reference to Ext.P1 order of annulment of the marriage.

6. Subsequently, the claimant/wife filed applications for execution of the order of maintenance passed under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. The amounts due under the order were paid without demur by the respondent/husband evidently accepting Ext.P2 order, notwithstanding the annulment of the marriage under Ext.P1.

7. It is in this context that the claimant/wife filed Ext.P3 application for recovery of the amount of maintenance due under Ext.P2 order for the period from 1/10/07 to 1/8/08. She claimed an amount of Rs.10,000/-as maintenance due for the said period