The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No.328/2013 on the files of the Family Court, Attingal. He is the husband of the 1st respondent as well as the father of the 2nd respondent. The above M.C. was filed by the respondents herein claiming maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the respondents, the 1st respondent is the legally wedded wife and the 2nd respondent is the son born in that wed-lock. The revision petitioner is legally liable to pay maintenance allowance to the respondents; but he has been neglecting to maintain them and refused to pay maintenance allowance from September, 2012 onwards. The 1st respondent has no job or any source of income to maintain herself and now she is solely depending upon her parents; whereas the revision petitioner was employed abroad and now he is working as a painter and getting a monthly income of `15,000/-. The respondents claim a total sum of `5,000/- per mensem. 2. The revision petitioner filed a counter statement admitting the paternity of the child; but disputing the marital status of the 1st respondent as legally wedded wife. According to him, there was no marriage in the eye of law and the 1st respondent cannot claim the status of a legally wedded wife. He filed O.P.(HMA) No.1528/2013 for a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage. He expressed his willingness to maintain the 2nd respondent. It is also averred that he intends to move the court for the custody of the 2nd respondent. He admitted that he is working as a painter; but he is not getting `15,000/- per mensem, as contended by the respondents. He is working as a painter with daily income of `500/- only. After considering the rival submissions, the court below directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance allowance of at the rate of `2,000/- per mensem to the 1st respondent and `1,500/- per mensem to the 2nd respondent. The legality and propriety of this order is under challenge in this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner advanced arguments mainly challenging the finding that the revision petitioner is legally liable to pay maintenance allowance to the 1st respondent.
4. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the marriage between the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent was not valid in the eye of law. Unless and until a legally valid marriage is proved, the 1st respondent is not entitled to get maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner.
5. Going by the impugned order, it could be seen that, in the counter statement itself, the revision petitioner had admitted that he had filed O.P. (HMA) No.1528/2013 seeking dissolution of the marriage. It is pertinent to note that he admitted the paternity of the 2nd respondent and he expressed his intention to move the court for getting custody of the 2nd respondent. In view of the above submissions, it could reasonably be presumed that even though the marriage is not legally valid, the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent had lived together as husband and wife and the 2nd respondent was born in that relationship. The law settled by the Supreme Court is that in so far as the claim of maintenance by the wife is concerned, strict proof as regards validity of marriage is not required to claim maintenance allowance and the wife is entitled to get maintenance allowance from the husband, if they lived together as husband and wife for a considerable period.
6. Having regard to the admitted facts in the counter statement, I am of the opinion that the said admission is sufficient enough to claim maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner even if the marriage is not legally valid.
7. In the light of the above discussions, I find that there is no illegality in the finding that the 1st respondent is entitled to get maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner. As regards the claim of the 2nd respondent, the revision petitioner himself admitted the paternity of the child and it is not challenged the right of the 2nd respondent to get maintenance allowance.
8. Coming to the quantum of maintenance allowance, the revision petitioner himself admitted that he is working as a painter with daily income of `500/-. Having regard to the said admission, in evidence, the status of the parties and the living cost of the respondents, I am also of the opinion that the quantum of maintenance allowance determined by the court below is proportionate with his admitted income and there is no reason to interfere with the determination of the quantum of maintenance allowance also.
This revision petition is devoid of merits and dismissed.
Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge