Maintenance under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure serves to provide financial support regardless of marital status disputes, emphasizing social justice for dependents.

ORDER

The revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order in M.C No.496/2015 of the Family Court, Nedumangad, ordering the revision petitioner to pay the respondents – his wife and child - monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.9000/- and Rs.4,000/- respectively, from the date of petition (17.12.2015). The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondents were the petitioners in the above application.

Brief facts

2. The respondents had filed the application under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘Code’), seeking monthly maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner. It was their case that the first respondent is the wife of the revision petitioner and the second respondent is the child born in their wedlock on 19.3.2013. The revision petitioner deserted the respondents since 1.1.2014. The respondents are unemployed and have no means to sustain themselves. The revision petitioner is employed as a Senior Engineer in Southern Railway and is drawing a monthly salary of Rs.60,000/-. Hence, the application.

3. The revision petitioner resisted the application by filing a written objection and contending that there is no marriage between him and the first respondent. He has instituted OP No.275/2015 before the same Court, for a declaration as to his marital status with the first respondent. Nonetheless, he admitted that the second respondent is the child born in his relationship with the first respondent. He also contended that the first respondent has sufficient means to maintain herself.

Hence, the application may be dismissed.

4. The first respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts P1 to P3 were marked in evidence. The revision petitioner was examined as CPW1 and Exts R1 and R2 were marked on his side.

5. The Family Court, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned order, partly allowed the application by directing the revision petitioner to pay the respondents monthly maintenance allowance.

6. It is challenging the said order; the present revision petition is filed.

7. Heard; Smt.Meena.A, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri.Anil P.V, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner argued that the Family Court has failed to take note of the fact that there was no valid marriage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent. Going by the materials on record, it is evident from Ext P1 original petition that the first respondent’s marriage was in force with her husband on the date of the alleged solemnisation of the marriage between her and the revision petitioner. The parties are Christians. As per Sec.19(4) of the Divorce Act , 1869, there should not be any marriage in force as on the date of solemnisation of the marriage between the parties. The admitted materials on record prove that the first respondent’s marriage was in force. Hence, the application of the first respondent is liable to be rejected.

9. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the contrary, vehemently countered the above submission and argued that the validity of the marriage cannot be questioned in an application under Section 125 of the Code, especially after the revision petitioner has admitted the solemnisation of his marriage with the first respondent. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court inPyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi vs. Pyla Suri Demudu and another [ 2011 KHC 4708 ] and this Court in Sivadasan P.K. vs. Jainy and another [ 2021 (2) KHC 242 ] to bolster his submission that the validity of a marriage cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code. He prayed that the revision petition be dismissed.

10. Is there any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order ?

11. In the celebrated decision inRajnesh v. Neha and Anr. [ 2020 (6) KHC 1 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Maintenance law