Mode of performance of marriage is to be proved.

ARUMUGHAM, J.

This appeal has been directed against the order of the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Madras in M.C. 160 of 1990 dated 16-11-1990 directing the appellant to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 300/- to the first respondent and Rs. 100/- to the second respondent.

2. The case of the respondents who are the petitioners in M.C. 160 of 1990 on the file of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Madras claiming maintenance from the appellant under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as culled out from the petition filed in that Court are extracted in brief as follows :

The marriage between the appellant and the first respondent took place at Thiruverkadu on 30-11-1987 in accordance vedic rites and caste custom and that thereafter both the appellant and the first respondent lived together at the residence of the respondents herein for a period of 1 1/2 years. As a result of the said wedlock the second respondent was born to them and that on the date of filing of the said petition the age of the second respondent as 1 1/2 years and he is now in the custody of the first respondent. While that being so, it was alleged that the appellant used to beat the first respondent and ill-treat her by perpetrating cruelty and violence and demanded money and that finally on 16-2-1989 it was alleged that the appellant left the matrimonial home of the first respondent and he did not return in spite of repeated requests and thereby deserted the respondents without any justifiable cause. Though the appellant was running an Auto Workshop under the name and style of Mahendra Varma Auto Works and was earning a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month, he had not paid even a single paid towards the maintenance of the respondents and that since the respondents had no means of any kind they were suffering, for their daily livelihood even and since the appellant deserted and neglected to maintain them, it was prayed in the petition that a reasonable amount may be ordered to be paid by the appellant herein.

3. The appellant as respondent in the petition for maintenance had filled a counterstatement in which he inter alia contended and denied the very performance of the marriage with the first respondent by him but admitted that he was the father of the child. He had further contended that he was willing to take the custody of the second respondent and maintain him and that he was not liable to pay any maintenance to the first respondent because she was not his legally wedded wife. He further denied the factum of running Auto Works and earning a monthly income of Rs. 3000/- as alleged.

4. Upon the above rival pleadings, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, framed the only point as to whether the appellant was liable to pay maintenance to the respondents and if so to what amount and from which date and considered the dispute on merits.

5. Before proceeding to decide on merits, the learned Judge made strenuous effort in reconciling the differences between the parties herein and effect a compromise by patching up of the difference between them but ultimately he could not succeed in bringing about an amicable settlement between the parties as evident from the case records.

6. The first respondent examined herself as P.W. 1 and during her evidence she was firm in claiming that on 30-11-1987 her marriage with the appellant took place in a Mandapam near Thiruverkadu and that thereafter they lived together as husband and wife for about 1 1/2 years in the house of the parents of the first respondent at Pulianthope and as a result of the said wedlock, the second respondent was born and even today, he was in the custody of the first respondent and that on 16-2-1989, the appellant left the family house and deserted both the respondents in spite of repeatedly insisted by the respondents to come and live with them and that consequently for the last about 1 1/2 years, he did not come to see the respondent, nor paid