( 1 ) IN Crlmc. 5 of 1970 filed under S. 488 Crlpc (Old) in the Court of the addl First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore, there were three petitioners and one respondent. The averments in the petition which was filed on 19-2-1970 are quite brief, and may be set out fairly in extenso as below: ( 2 ) THE first petitioner Shanthakumari is the lawfully wedded wife of the respondent M. A Mohan Ram and was married to him under Hindu rites in June. 1963 in Fraser Town, Civil Station. Bangalore. bthe first petitioner and respondent last resided as a wedded couple at No. 192 (old 133 ). Naravana Pillai Street Civil Station, Bangalore Petitioners 2 and 3 son and daughter Ramganesh. aged about 6 years and Kumudini aged about 2 vears are the minor children of the 1st petitioner by the said marriage with the respondent. Ever since her marriage the respondent has been treating the first petitioner most inhumanly In Decr 1968 the respondent beat the first petitioner and sent her awav with the children to her parents' house He refused to maintain the petitioners which in law he was bound to do. The respondent is working in the Hindustan Machine Tools, (HMT) Bangalore and is drawing over Rs. 400. He owns immovable property also. The first petitioner and the children (petitioners 2 and 3) require at least Rs 250 for their food and clothing and also the education of the children, and an amount of Rs. 250 per month is claimed on this account. ( 3 ) THE respondent filed his obiections dt. 8-7-1970. The averments there are also brief and may usefullv be set out fairlv in extenso The allegation that the first petitioner is the lawfully wedded wife of the respondent and was married to him under Hindu rites in June 1963 at the place mentioned are false and are emphatically denied. The respondent belongs to the Hindu Mudaliar community and on enquiry, it is learnt that the first petitioner belongs to the Christian Catholic community. The alleged marriage is not a legally constituted marriage, even if the first petitioner attempts to prove the existence of the marriage. It is also denied that the first petitioner and he lived as wife and husband. He did not cohabit with her to beget petitioners 2 and 3. The alleged marriage is not a legally constituted marriage, even if the first petitioner attempts to prove the existence of the marriage. It is also denied that the first petitioner and he lived as wife and husband. He did not cohabit with her to beget petitioners 2 and 3. He denies having last resided with the petitioners at 192, Narayana Pillai St, Civil Stn, Bangalore. Petitioners 2 and 3 are not his children, He denies having ill-treated the first petitioner, beating her and driving the petitioners out of his house. He is neither in law nor on facts bound to maintain thf petitioners. The allegation that he is living with one Pushpa in Munireddypalya is also stoutly denied The amount of his emoluments is exaggerated and so also the quantum of maintenance claimed by the petitioners ( 4 ) THE case came up for trial before the Metropolitan Megistrate, vith Court, Bangalore City. He framed the following points for determination: (i) Whether the first petitioner is the wife of the respondent? (ii) Tf so. whether the respondent has neglected to maintain the first petitioner and her two children? (iii) To what amount the petitioners are entitled? ( 5 ) FOR the petitioners the first petitioner examined herself as PW. 1. Three other witnesses viz, PW. 2 Ismail, the landlord of the premises in which the parties are said to have last resided before separation, the wedding photographer PW. 3 Sri M. K. Krishna, and PW. 4 Sri Sampangi, the president of the Sangham, under whose auspices the marriage ceremony took place, were examined. Exts. P1 to P7 (b) were marked. ( 6 ) FOR the respondent he examined himself as RW. 1 and got marked exts. D1 and D1 (a) ( 7 ) THE answer to point No 1, as found at the end of para 9 of the magistrate's order, is-". . . . Therefore, for the reasons, I hold that the material placed on record goes to show that the petitioner and the respondent were married on 14-6-1963 and they lived together as such for over 7 years. "the finding on point No. 2 is contained in the middle of para 12 of the magistrate's order, viz,". . . . However, it is clear, that the respondent has totally neglected to maintain the first petitioner and her children 2 and 3 at least from the year 1969. . "the finding on point No. 2 is contained in the middle of para 12 of the magistrate's order, viz,". . . . However, it is clear, that the respondent has totally neglected to maintain the first petitioner and her children 2 and 3 at least from the year 1969. . . . . . . . "on point No. 3 the answer of the Magistrate is in paras 14 and 15 of his order, as below:" So having considered the circumstances, the income of the respondent, the status of the parties, I feel it just and appropriate to award Rs. 75 (seventy-five rupees) a month to the first petitioner and rs. 75 (seventy-five rupees) a month for petitioners 2 and 3. In the result, the petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 150 towards the maintenance of the petitioners. " ( 8 ) THE revision petitioner here is the aggrieved respondent in the court below. The respondents here are the petitioners in that Court. Though numerous grounds are set out in the memorandum of revision, sri A. M. Farooq, petitioner's learned Advocate, represented, and I should say in all fairness, that on the overwhelming evidence, he does not pursue the pleas that respondents 2 and 3 were not begotten by the petitioner of the first respondent; that he does not- assail the quantum of maintenance awarded and that the children, respondents 2 and 3, are entitled to maintenance at the rate ordered. He however, vehemently argued that the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent is invalid and that the first respondent is not entitled to maintenance. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, Sri G. M. Rego, learned Advocate for the respondents, with equal vehemence, argued that the first respondent also, like respondents 2 and 3, is entitled to maintenance as ordered by the Court below. ( 10 ) THE only and real question, therefore, which is of considerable legal importance, is whether the first respondent also is entitled to maintenance from the petitioner as ordered by the Magistrate? ( 11 ) HERE itself some important dates are to be noted. In the decision in Perumal Nadar v. Ponnuswdmi Nadar, AIR. 1971 SC. 2352, the marriage in question between Perumal Nadar (Hindu) and Annapazham, an Indian Christian converted to Hinduism, took place on 29-11-1950. ( 11 ) HERE itself some important dates are to be noted. In the decision in Perumal Nadar v. Ponnuswdmi Nadar, AIR. 1971 SC. 2352, the marriage in question between Perumal Nadar (Hindu) and Annapazham, an Indian Christian converted to Hinduism, took place on 29-11-1950. The Supreme Court ruling was rendered on 17-3-1970. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955) came into force on 18-5-1955. The marriage in the instant case took place on 14-6-1963 viz, after the coming into force of that Act. ( 12 ) SRI Rego relied heavily upon the above Supreme Court decision wherein the following passages are found:"a person may be a Hindu by birth or by conversion. A mere theoretical allegiance to the Hindu faith by a person born in another faith does not convert him into a Hindu, nor is a bare declaration that he is a hindu sufficient to convert him to Hinduism. But a bona fide intention to be converted to the Hindu faith, accompanied by conduct unequivocally expressing that intention may be sufficient evidence of conversion. No formal ceremony of purification or expiation is necessary to effectuate conversion. "". . . . . Absence of specific expiatory or purificatory ceremonies will not, in our judgment, be sufficient to hold that she was not converted to Hinduism "before the marriage ceremony was performed. The fact that Perumal chose to go through the marriage ceremony according to hindu rites with Annapazham in the presence of a large number of persons clearly indicates that he accepted that Annaphazham was converted to Hinduism before the marriage ceremony was performed. " (Accent supplied ). ( 13 ) AS pointed out by Sri Rego, nowhere it is suggested in the evidence of the respondent (PW. 11) that at the time of marriage she was not a Hindu and, in fact, important answers have been elicited in her cross-examination that she was a Hindu when she married the petitioner. In the wedding invitation Ex. P1, 'muhurtham between 6 to 7 A. M. ' is mentioned. According to the English translation of Ex. P6 (b)of the Tamil entry Ex. P6 (a) in the register Ex. P6 marked through PW. In the wedding invitation Ex. P1, 'muhurtham between 6 to 7 A. M. ' is mentioned. According to the English translation of Ex. P6 (b)of the Tamil entry Ex. P6 (a) in the register Ex. P6 marked through PW. 4, the marriage agreement is entered as below:" We the bride and bridegroom as referred in the marriage invitation card we hereby inform that on the 14th day of June 1963 on friday morning between 6 and 7-30 A. M. by the grace of Almighty god and in the presence of the elders those who were present and with the consent of the parents according to Hindu rites we both have married this day___" ( 14 ) AS rightly contended by Sri Rego, birth is by accident, and religion is by choice or adoption, and that there cannot be the slightest doubt here that though the respondent might have been born into a Christian family, she embraced the Hindu religion long before the marriage. ( 15 ) SRI Farooq relied upon certain passages in Mulla's Hindu Law of 14th Edn, at pages 661 and 655. These, in my opinion, are of no assistance to him since they do not deal with a Hindu by religion. Ss. 2 (1) (a), 5 and 29 refer to only a Hindu by religion and not a Hindu by birth. ( 16 ) SECTION 7 of the above Act is as below :" 7 (1) A Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thersto. (2) Where such rites and ceremonies include the Saptapadi (that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. " ( 17 ) THE petitioner cannot derive any support from the answer of the respondents, PW. 1, that she. does no know what is Saptapadi. The more important answer is that the priest gave the thali to the petitioner, RW. 1, and he tied it round the respondent's neck. ( 18 ) THE resultant position is that the decision of the Court below has to be upheld since PW. 1 and RW. 1 are Hindus duly married. PW. 1 is also entitled to maintenance as ordered by the Court below. That order is confirmed. This Revision Petition stands dismissed. --- *** --- .