ORDER

The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is his wife. The petitioner's first wife died in the year 2013. The respondent got divorce from his first husband. Thereafter, the family members of both the families, knowing the first marriage of each other, solemnised their marriage following Christian ceremony on 27.11.2014. The respondent/ husband has one son namely, Frederick Joe, aged 15 years, born through his first wife. He has to maintain him and his aged parents. At the time of marriage 15 gm gold jewels and Rs.50,000/- Sridhana articles and also 8 gm ring were given to the husband by the parents of the petitioner/wife. They were living happily after the marriage. In the meantime, the respondent/husband developed relationship with one Edwin. Hence, the petitioner/wife approached that lady Edwin and advised her to sever the relationship from her husband. But, she refused the relationship. Thereafter, she informed to his parents. The respondent/husband refused their marriage and sent her out of their home. In between, he filed suit to declare their marriage as 'null and void' and the said suit was dismissed. Finally, the petitioner/wife filed the maintenance petition claiming maintenance for herself. The trial Judge awarded Rs.7,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife. Challenging the same, the respondent/husband filed this revision before this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submitted that he disputed the validity of the maintenance and also raised a point that the petitioner received salary of Rs.24,591/-. Out of the said amount, he is obliged to maintain his age old parents and also the son born through his first wife. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for dismissal of the maintenance petition.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent/wife submitted that all the facts was considered by the learned trial Judge. The petitioner's mother is also receiving the family pension. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that he is obliged to maintain the parents can not be accepted. Further, the suit filed by the petitioner/husband to declare the marriage 'null and void' was dismissed. Hence the argument of the petitioner that the marriage was not solemnised in accordance with any Christian ceremony is also not correct.

4. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by both side, and perused the records and also the impugned judgement passed by the learned trial Judge.

5. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/wife, the petitioner's suit for declaration of the marriage 'null and void' was dismissed. Hence, it is proved that the marriage was solemnised by following Christian ceremony. Hence, the plea of the petitioner/husband that the marriage is not solemnised according to the customs of Christian faith is not correct and hence there is no valid marriage is not accepted.

6.The similar plea raised in this case was also raised by a husband before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of , reported in and the same was not accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the following finding:-

13. On this basis, it was pleaded before us that this matter be also tagged along with the aforesaid case. However, in the facts of the present case, we do not deem it proper to do so as we find that the view taken by the courts below is perfectly justified. We are dealing with a situation where the marriage between the parties has been proved. However, the petitioner was already married. But he duped the respondent by suppressing the factum of alleged first marriage. On these facts, in our opinion, he cannot be permitted to deny the benefit of maintenance to the respondent, taking advantage of his own wrong. Our reasons for this course of action are stated hereinafter:

13.1.Firstly, in Chanmuniya case [Chanmuniya v.

Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 53 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 666] , the parties had been living together for a long time