(1.) PETITIONER seeks to revise the order of the Court of Session, Manjeri Division awarding maintenance to the 1st respondent. She moved the court of the magistrate for maintenance for herself and her minor son 2nd respondent, claiming themselves to be the wife and child of petitioner. Magistrate awarded maintenance to the child and declined maintenance to the wife. Magistrate found that a certain relationship existed between the petitioner and 1st respondent. According to him, it was only "Sambandam" and sambandam according to learned magistrate, "is only an illegitimate cohabitation not legally recognised". The magistrate has apparently misdirected and miss -informed himself on a question of law. 'Sambandam' is the pristine form of a legal marriage recognised among the marumakkaihayies of the erstwhile Malabar. A passage from Malabar and Aliyasanthana Law by P. R. Sundara Aiyar is apposite in this context. It is said:
(2.) THE view of the Sessions Judge is correct and he was justified in revising the order of the magistrate, on law. The magistrate visualised a legal marriage to be something far more than what it is required to be under section 125 Cr, P. C. Any form of valid customary marriage would be valid in law. In Sumftra Devi Vs. Bhikan Choudhary ( : AIR 1985 S. C. 765), the Supreme Court observed that: