Judgment :- 1. This revision petition has been preferred by one Kunhiraman Nair against the order of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Manantoddy directing him under S.488, Cr. P. C. to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 30/- to the first respondent-wife and Rs. 15/- to the second respondent, the minor daughter. 2. The respondent's case before the learned Magistrate was that the first respondent is the wife of the revision petitioner and the second respondent is the daughter born to him. The first respondent Annakutty is a Christian following the Roman Catholic faith. Herself and the revision petitioner were friends even from their school days and on 2 61960 their marriage was celebrated in the auditorium at Santha Bhavan at Calicut in the presence of Pw-4 Sundaran Nair, who is a cousin of the revision petitioner and a few others. Flower garlands were exchanged before a lighted lamp and they shook hands and went round the lamp, which according to the respondent are in conformity with a Nair marriage. After the marriage, she was taken by the revision petitioner to his tarwad house and there they lived together till they shifted to another house belonging to her, since the atmosphere in the revision petitioner's tarwad was not congenial to them. Eventually she got pregnant and gave birth to respondent No. 2 in the Manantody Government hospital on 112 1963. The information of the birth of the child was conveyed to the village office and there it was entered in the appropriate register. Ex. P-1 is the certified copy of the extract of the birth register. The fact of her admission in the hospital for confinement was also entered in the register maintained in the hospital. Ex. P-3 is the relevant entry. After confinement she was taken back and they continued their stay in the house where they had shifted from the tarwad house. For about four months they lived together like that. Thereafter a change of attitude was noticed in the revision petitioner and he began to absent himself from the house often times. He also began to behave cruelly towards her and she was not being properly maintained also. On enquiry the respondent found that he had some sort of an attachment with a lady teacher in the Dwaraka U. P. School and that was the cause of his indifference towards her. He also began to behave cruelly towards her and she was not being properly maintained also. On enquiry the respondent found that he had some sort of an attachment with a lady teacher in the Dwaraka U. P. School and that was the cause of his indifference towards her. The respondent therefore had to sell away her property for her day to day expenses and when the money got by the sale of the property was exhausted she was left in the lurch and do other alternative was left for her, but to resort to the court with the petition under S.488 Cr. P. C. Maintenance was claimed by her at the rate of Rs. 30/- for herself and Rs. 60/- for the child. 3. The revision petitioner in his counter, stated that he had never married the first respondent, but he was friendly with her. He had a caste wife one Ambujakshy, and while himself and Ambujakshy were living together this respondent was employed by him as their domestic servant; but she had ultimately to be dismissed from service for her own immoral conduct, on 16 111961. Her arrears of pay were disbursed to her up-to-date and she was sent away. No child was born to her till that time. The paternity of the second respondent has emphatically been denied by him. His marriage with Ambujakshy subsisted till 4-5-1963. During the subsistence of that alliance it was not legally possible for him to contract another alliance. The respondent was ill disposed to him on account of O. S.78/64, which was a suit filed by him against her for trespass into his house. The trespass was on 17111961.Out of enmity resulting from that suit the respondent, on the advice of her brother Chacko has filed the present petition to insult him and to lower him in the estimation of the public. Learned Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence in the case has come to the conclusion that the respondent was in fact married by the revision petitioner as alleged by her and that they were living together as man and wife and the daughter was born of that wedlock. 4. Learned Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence in the case has come to the conclusion that the respondent was in fact married by the revision petitioner as alleged by her and that they were living together as man and wife and the daughter was born of that wedlock. 4. It was argued before me that the view taken by the court below is wrong; firstly, for the reason that the respondent has not succeeded in establishing that she is the lawfully wedded wife of the revision petitioner, and secondly, that even if the marriage as alleged is true it could only be void in view of the fact that his marriage with Ambujakshy was subsisting at the time. It was also argued that it is not possible for a Nair to have a valid marital alliance, with a Christian lady unless it is registered under the Special Marriage Act. The Indian Christian Marriage Act does not stand in the way of a Christian marrying a non-Christian; but such marriage will have to be solemnised under the provisions of the said Act. We are not very much concerned in this case as to whether the marriage between the respondent and the revision petitioner was solemnized under the provisions of the Indian Christian Marriage Act. For the purpose of S.488 Cr. P. C., it is enough if the respondent satisfies the court that she has been treated by the revision petitioner as his wife. The following observations appearing in David v. Nilamoni Devi (AIR. 1953 Orissa 10) are pertinent in this connection. The learned judge has observed in that case that: "There is no provision in the Indian Christian Marriage Act to the effect that marriage amongst Indian Christians can be provided only by affirmatively establishing that the provisions of S.5 of the Act were complied with or by production of a certified copy of the marriage certificate as permitted by S.80 of that Act The Evidence Act also does not lay down any special mode of proof of a Christian marriage. Hence admissions by either of the spouses of the fact of marriage, evidence of eye witnesses who were present during the marriage ceremony, subsequent conduct of the couple in living as husband and wife for some time and the opinion expressed by conduct of persons who had special means of knowledge of the subject, being all various recognised modes of proof of a marriage may be admitted in evidence to prove a marriage among Indian Christians also." The fact, therefore, that the present marriage was not registered under the Special Marriage Act does not stand in the way of the respondent being treated as the wife of the revision petitioner and the spouses conducting themselves as man and wife. That apart, in the present case there are abundant materials for the court to enter the finding that the respondent is the lawfully wedded wife of the revision petitioner. Pw-4 is none other than the first cousin of the revision petitioner. He was present in the auditorium at Santha Bhavan to witness the marriage. He has deposed to all the formalities that were gone into, viz., the exchange of garlands, the going round the lighted lamp etc. pw-3 is the village officer of Nallcornad and he is one related to the revision petitioner. He has deposed that he was approached by the revision petitioner for advice and co-operation in his marrying the respondent. He would swear further that the revision petitioner had told him that he was afraid of persecution by the Christians of the place and so he wanted his active support. On return from Calicut after the marriage, Pw-3 had occasion to meet him and ascertain from him all details regarding the marriage ceremony. Pw-5 is the brother of the first respondent and he was also present at the marriage. The revision petitioner has admitted that the respondent has been living with him in his own tarwad house; but he would qualify himself by saying that she was only functioning as a domestic servant; this has been disproved by the electoral roll of 1961 wherein Pw-1 has been shown as a member of the household and against her name the revision petitioner's name has been shown within brackets. The person shown within brackets against a female in the electoral roll might either be the husband or the father or karnavan. The person shown within brackets against a female in the electoral roll might either be the husband or the father or karnavan. In the present case the name within brackets could never have been the father or karnavan. The revision petitioner has a case that his caste wife Ambujakshy was staying with him at the time and therefore there was not the least possibility of his taking the respondent as his wife; but we do not see the name of Ambujakshy in the voters list among the other inmates of the house. At the fag-end of the trial the revision petitioner produced in court a registered document executed by him jointly with Ambujakshy dated 4th May, 1963 purporting to be the document of dissolution of their marriage. In the light of the said document he would request the court to presume that his marriage with Ambujakshy had continued up to that date. It is impossible to conclude from the above circumstance that his alliance with Ambujakshy continued. The voters list was prepared in 1961. At that time any way, Ambujakshy was not seen in the house, along with the other members. Ambujakshy episode therefore is not absolutely free from doubt. To crown all, we have the unqualified admission made by the revision petitioner before court in another case that the first respondent is his own wife. The case is C. C. 15/61, copy of the judgment being Ex, P-2. That was a case filed by the first respondent against the revision petitioner's brother-in-law for house trespass, assault etc. That occurrence took place during her stay in the revision petitioner's tarwad house. In that case the revision petitioner was examined as Pw-2 and he has deposed that Annakutty, the first respondent, is his lawfully wedded wife. In that deposition he has also stated that he had a former wife by name Ambujakshy and she had given him her consent to marry Annakutty. Learned counsel would point out that the consent of the former wife will not render the second alliance valid. In my view it is unnecessary to go in such detail into the nature of the former alliance, especially in view of the fact that it has already been dissolved by a registered agreement. When the revision petitioner himself states before court that the first respondent is his wife nothing more is needed for ordering maintenance under S.488 Cr. In my view it is unnecessary to go in such detail into the nature of the former alliance, especially in view of the fact that it has already been dissolved by a registered agreement. When the revision petitioner himself states before court that the first respondent is his wife nothing more is needed for ordering maintenance under S.488 Cr. P. C. 5. On the question of the paternity of the second respondent it was argued on behalf of the revision petitioner that it has not been proved that he had access to the lady during the relevant period. When once the marriage is proved the presumption would arise in favour of the legitimacy of the children born during the subsistence of the alliance. That apart, the revision petitioner has not proved to the satisfaction of the court that during the relevant period he had no access at all to the first respondent. Of course their relationship was not quite cordial especially in view of the litigation that was going on between them. From that circumstance alone it cannot be presumed that he had no access to her and there was no possibility of sexual contact between the two. It is interesting, in this connection, to note that in the birth register maintained in the village office, copy of which is Ex. P-1, the revision petitioner has been shown as the father of the child, born to the first respondent and the first respondent is shown as the mother of the child. It is, impossible for the revision petitioner to wriggle out from the situation arising from the entry in Ex-P-1, and his own admission seen from Ex-P-2 judgment. Thus by his own admission and conduct he has held himself out as the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent. I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the court below. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Dismissed.