UMESH K.B. REVISION Vs. SREEKALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision on hand is directed against the order passed by Family Court, Thalassery on 28.04.2018 in M.C. No. 248 of 2017. The revision is filed by the counter petitioner in the M.C. seeking to set aside the order directing him to pay maintenance. The parties to this Revision Petition shall be referred to hereinafter as the respondent and the petitioner in accordance with their status before the Family Court.

(2.) At the outset, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the alleged marriage between the parties to the revision petition is now declared by a civil court as null and void and therefore the petitioner lost her status as wife of the respondent and is not entitled to get maintenance from him. Certified copies of the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2020 in O.P. No. 406 of 2017 of the Family Court, Kannur declaring the marriage as null and void are produced in the revision respectively as Annexures-A1 and A2. The learned counsel has also relied on Santosh (Smt) v. Naresh Pal. [(1998) 8 SCC 447] to rest his contention that the judgment of a civil court will bind the court dealing with a claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Sri. K. Ashis, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that for being entitled to get maintenance, a lady need not establish her marital bondage with the counter petitioner from whom the claim for that is made. According to him a lady who is in a live-in relationship with the counter petitioner is also entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. According to him, the petitioner had lived with the respondent as husband and wife for a certain period and therefore, her claim for maintenance cannot be thrown aside by reversing the impugned order.