A customary divorce recognized in a particular district, such as the custom of divorce among Jats in Hoshiarpur District, can dissolve a Hindu marriage, allowing the divorced person to remarry, provided that there is a good cause for the divorce and it is evidenced by a written document.

V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. Petitioner Ranbir Kaur was married to the respondent on 15.3.1987. They were blessed with two children Hardev Singh and Harwinder Singh, Hardev Singh has since died. In February, 1992 the petitioner was turned out of matrimonial house. She filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of the maintenance for herself and for the minor child. The respondent contested the same alleging that the petitioner is not his legally wedded wife. He had developed intimacy with the petitioner. She started living in his house. There was a proposal to marry but it did not materialise. The petitioner was slated to be having illicit relations with one Darshan Singh. The respondent further contended that he had undergone the sterilisation operation in May, 1985 at Civil Hospital, Tanda and thus there was no question of Harwinder Singh having been born from his loins. Furthermore the petitioner was stated to have already been married at Village Nurpur. They had not legally been divorced. She could not marry the respondent again. The respondents case fur- ther was that he was earning Rs. 700/- to Rs. 800/- p.m.

2. The learned Judicial Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence on 9.5.1994 held that petitioner was legally wedded wife of the respondent. Harwinder Singh was their child. He allowed maintenance to the petitioner and Harwinder Singh at Rs. 350/-p.m. each from the date of the filing of the application. The revision petitions were filed with the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur held that so far as Harwinder Singh is concerned, he was entitled to maintenance but qua the petitioner, the revision petition of the respondent was allowed. It was concluded that the petitioner was already married. She had not legally been divorced. She could not re-marry the respondent and the marriage was null and void. Thus, it was concluded that she could not invoke Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

4. It is well known that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been enacted to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife.

5. So far as the maintenance awarded to Harwinder Singh is concerned, there was no dispute raised in the Court. The sole controversy as is apparent from the facts recited above was whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in declining maintenance to the petitioner or not. In this regard the first and foremost question that comes up for consideration is as to if the petitioner was married to the respondent or not. She had examined Bachan Dass, Deed Writer of Sub Tehsil, Tandaas AW-1. He is the scriber of the Will in favour of the petitioner. Sudesh Kumari, Clerk of Sub Tehsil, Tanda was also examined as AW-2. She established that the Will was registered. It described the petitioner as the wife of the respondent. In addition to that Mohinder Singh Chowkidar of the village appeared as PW-3. He proved the birth entry Ex. Al of Harwinder Singh as the son of Gurnam Singh/respondent. These factors clearly show that the petitioner was married to the respondent. It is in evidence that the parties were living together and the above evidence further shows that they were living together as husband and wife. When a man and woman were living together as husband and wife, the children were acknowledged as their own, then one can safely draw the inference of their being a factum of marriage between the two. To the same effect is the decision in the case of Bikash Kumar Mukherjee & Ors. v. Nanda Rani Mukherjee & Ors., AIR 1979 Calcutta 358. Close to the facts of the present case is also the decision from Madras High Court in the case of Mahendravarman v. Ramani & Anr., 1993 (3) RCR 1. In the cited case also, the wife was claiming ma