The responsibility to provide maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is not solely dependent on proving the subsistence of marriage, but also on the factual living arrangement and the financial capacity of the husband.

This revision has been preferred against the order passed in M.C.No.4 of 2003 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, perambalur, dated 29. 2003.

2. The respondent in M.C.No.4 of 2003 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur is the revision petitioner herein. The said application was filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by his wife Malarkodi and their daughters minor Malathi and minor Anupriya. In the said application, the petitioners have claimed Rs.500/- each towards maintenance from the revision petitioner/respondent.

3. The short facts in the maintenance petition relevant for the purpose of deciding this revision are as follows:

The marriage between the first petitioner Malarkodi and the respondent Rajendran took place at Elampillai Chitrakoil, Salem District and in the wed lock petitioners 2 and 3 were born. Since the second petitioner is a female child, the respondent threatened the first petitioner to kill the child to which the first petitioner was not agreed to. Thereafter both the first petitioner and the respondent were living at Coimbatore as husband and wife. The third petitioner was also born at Coimbatore. The revision petitioner/respondent has demanded the first respondent/ first petitioner to bring more dowry from the house of the first respondent herein. The revision petitioner/respondent has further criminally intimidated the first respondent to put an end to the female child and also demanded dowry and insisted the first petitioner to bring 10 sovereign of gold jewels and T.V besides house hold utensils. Since the first petitioner has refused to bring more dowry, she began to live with her parents due to unbearable harassment received at the hands of the revision petitioner/respondent. The respondent began to live with another woman at Kerala. The respondent is working as a Jeep Driver in the Collectorate, Perambalur in Information and Publicity Department. The respondent is a well to do man. But the respondent has neglected to maintain the petitioners 1 to 3. The first petitioner/first respondent finds it very difficult to see both ends meet . She would not get sufficient income to provide wearing apparels, food and other expenses to her children. Hence the petition for maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- to each of the petitioners.

4. The respondent in his counter would contend that there is no relationship of husband and wife between him and the first petitioner Malarkodi and that second and third petitioners were not born to the first petitioner and the respondent and there was no marriage solemnised between the first respondent and the revision petitioner as alleged in the petition at Elampillai Chitrakoil, Salem District. The respondent has filed O.S.No.327 of 2000 against the petitioners. Only to snatch a substantial amount from the respondent/revision petitioner, the petitioners/respondents have filed the petition for maintenance. The respondent at any point of time has demanded any dowry from the first petitioner or never threatened the second and third petitioners to put an end to their life. This respondent is working as a Jeep Driver and is earning only Rs.3,800/-per mensum. After the death of his first wife, Shanthi, the respondent has shifted his residence to Kerimedu at Salem and was residing in the house owned by Bala and Parameswari. The first petitioner is the sister of the said Parameswari. The first petitioner had developed intimacy with the brother of the said Balu viz., Sait and had left the house along with Sait. After Balu traced them, the first petitioner had informed that she became pregnant only through Sait and she will live only with Sait. Since this revision petitioner/rspondent was residing as a tenant in the house of the sister of the first petitioner, with an ulterior motive, the first petitioner has filed the frivolous maintenance application. The revision petitioner/respondent had married one Ramani while he was working at Coimbatore and through the