Judgment :- 1. Revision petitioner is the respondent in MC 18 of 1983 of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class Court, Trivandrum. Respondents 2 and 3 filed MC 18 of 1983 claiming maintenance from the revision petitioner. Learned Magistrate awarded maintenance to the 3rd respondent at the rate of Rs. 90/-per mensem. Maintenance was refused to the 2nd respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 filed Criminal R P. 65 of 1984 before the Sessions Court, Trivandrum. The learned Sessions Judge held that there was valid marriage between the second respondent and the revision petitioner and that at the time of that marriage no previous marriage was subsisting between revision petitioner and Vijaya Selvi as contended by him. 2. For the sake of convenience the position of the parties as it stood before the trial court is followed in the discussions hereunder. The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner was married by the respondent on 14-9-1973, that a child (second petitioner) was born to them in the wedlock, that the respondent has failed to maintain them, that they do not have sufficient means to maintain themselves and that therefore they are entitled to maintenance. Respondent filed counter statement refuting the allegation that he had married the first petitioner. He contended that he had married a woman by name Vijaya Selvi in 1972 and in that wedlock he has three children. It is admitted by the respondent that he had intimate relationship with the 1st petitioner and that he had sexual intercourse with her. But he disclaimed any association with her from 1973 onwards. Paternity of the child is admitted by the respondent. He admitted that he used to send Rs. 40/ per month to the 1st petitioner regularly as maintenance for the child. 3. Counsel for the respondent mainly contended that the Sessions Judge went wrong in reversing the order of the Magistrate and remanding the case to the trial court. The Magistrate accepted the case of the respondent that he had married Vijaya Selvi on 12-7-1972 and as the marriage between him and the 1st petitioner had taken place on 14-9-1973 the later marriage is not valid at all. The Magistrate accepted the case of the respondent that he had married Vijaya Selvi on 12-7-1972 and as the marriage between him and the 1st petitioner had taken place on 14-9-1973 the later marriage is not valid at all. Counsel for the respondent contended that in view of the affirmative evidence regarding the marriage between the respondent and Vijaya Selvi on 12-7-1972 the alleged marriage between the respondent and the first petitioner even if assumed to be true cannot improve the position so far as the first petitioner is concerned as that marriage is not legally valid in view of the subsisting marriage between the respondent and Vijaya Selvi. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that so long as there no acceptable material to hold that at the time when the respondent had married the first petitioner a previous marriage was subsisting as between the respondent and Vijaya Selvi the marriage between the respondent and the first petitioner cannot be held to be invalid. 4. Respondent examined as C. P. W.1 stated that be married Vijaya Selvi on 12-7-1972, and that he has three children in that marriage. He denied that he married P. W.1 but admitted intimate relationship with her. He also admitted that the second petitioner is his own daughter. He stated that he married Vijaya Selvi on 12-7-1972 in accordance with the customary rites from Sangumugham temple. Ext. D-4 is the certificate he had obtained from the temple authorities to prove that marriage. C. P. Ws. 2 and 3 stated that they attended the marriage of C.P.W.1 with Vijaya Selvi. The trial court did not place any reliance on the testimony of C. P. Ws. 2 and 3. Counsel for the respondent submitted that cross-examination of C. P. Ws. 2 and 3 has not brought out any circumstance to disbelieve their testimony and therefore the trial Court ought to have believed it. Counsel submitted that apart from the evidence of C. P. Ws. 2 and 3 the evidence given by C. P. W 4 and Exts. D-4 and D-5 will go to a great extent to prove the marriage between the respondent and Vijaya Selvi. C. P. W. 4 is the Sreekariakaran of Saagumugham Devi Temple, Trivandrum. He stated that he is the custodian of the temple records. 2 and 3 the evidence given by C. P. W 4 and Exts. D-4 and D-5 will go to a great extent to prove the marriage between the respondent and Vijaya Selvi. C. P. W. 4 is the Sreekariakaran of Saagumugham Devi Temple, Trivandrum. He stated that he is the custodian of the temple records. C. P. W. 4 stated that he could not produce the marriage register maintained in the temple for the year 1972 as it has been produced before the Mansiff's Court, Trivandrum. C. P. W. 4 has produced the register for issuing the marriage certificate. That register contains the counterfoil) of the certificates. He deposed that on 12-7-72 the marriage between Vijaya and Mani was registered and counterfoil No. 26 would prove the same and that the Sub Group Officer has signed it. That has been marked as Ext. D-5. 5. Counsel for the petitioners argued that evidence of C. P. W.1 will not show that all the customary ceremonies of the marriage were performed and on that sole ground it has to be held that there was no valid marriage between the respondent and Vijaya Selvi. It is true that C. P. W.1 did not say that he gave pudava to Vijya Selvi. In cross-examination C. P. W.1 mentioned about some of the customary ceremonies and rites of the marriage. Counsel for the respondent submitted that C. P. W.1 was not specifically asked about the offering of pudava and that was the reason why he did not say about it in cross-examination and that alone is not sufficient to reject the evidence of the first marriage which is evidenced by Ext. D-4 certificate. Ext. D-4 shows that the marriage was performed in accordance with the customary ceremonies and rites prevailing in the community. Exts. D-4 and D-5 coupled with, the evidence of C. P. Ws.1 to 4 would really establish the first marriage between the respondent and Vijaya Selvi. 6. Counsel for the petitioners contended that under S.7(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act rites and ceremonies include Saptapadi and as there is no evidence to hold that Saptapadi was performed in this case it cannot be said that the alleged marriage between respondent and Vijaya Selvi is valid. In Ext. D-4 certificate it is clearly stated that the marriage was conducted in the temple in accordance with the Hindu customs and rites. As Ext. In Ext. D-4 certificate it is clearly stated that the marriage was conducted in the temple in accordance with the Hindu customs and rites. As Ext. D-4 has been issued from the temple and as there cannot be any challenge about its authenticity the 1st marriage of C. P. W.1 stands proved and merely because C. P. W.1 omitted to say some of the customary ceremonies of the marriage its legality cannot be questioned. When it is proved that a marriage was performed there is a presumption of there being a marriage in law. In a case where the factum of celebration of some form of marriage is established the Court is justified in the particular circumstances of the case in raising legal presumption of lawful marriage arising out of long cohabitation and that too with their children. 7. Counsel for the respondent submitted that as the marriage between Vijaya Selvi and the respondent has been proved by documentary and oral evidence, the alleged marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent will not have any legal validity as it offends S.5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act. S.5(i) makes it abundantly clear that for a legal marriage neither party should have a spouse living at the time of the marriage. In view of the evidence in the case that respondent had married Vijaya Selvi and that he has three children born to her, the subsequent marriage cannot have any legal validity. There is no evidence to show that the marriage between the respondent and Vijaya Selvi has been divorced or that it was not subsisting when the second marriage took place. 8. Ext. D-4 shows that the marriage was conducted in the temple in accordance with the Hindu customs and rites. Evidence of C. P.Ws.1 to 4 along with Exts. D-4 and D-5 would conclusively establish the marriage between the respondent and Vijaya Selvi on 12-7-1972. Therefore the subsequent marriage between the respondent and the first petitioner can never be construed as a legal marriage. So long as there is no valid marriage the first petitioner is not entitled to claim any maintenance. 9. Under S.125 of the Criminal Procedure Code wife or divorced wife is entitled to claim maintenance. Therefore the subsequent marriage between the respondent and the first petitioner can never be construed as a legal marriage. So long as there is no valid marriage the first petitioner is not entitled to claim any maintenance. 9. Under S.125 of the Criminal Procedure Code wife or divorced wife is entitled to claim maintenance. As the marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent is null and void as it has contravened S.5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1st petitioner is not entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent. S.11 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that any marriage solemnised after the commencement of the Act shall be null and void if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in Clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of S.5 of the Act. A void marriage does not create any right and obligation which normally arise from a valid marriage. A reading of S.125 Cr. PC shows that a legally wedded wife or legitimate or illegitimate child could claim maintenance from the husband or the father when he having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain them. As the marriage pleaded by the 1st petitioner has been found to be null and void she cannot lawfully claim any maintenance from the respondent. 10. The learned Sessions Judge went wrong in reversing the judgment of the trial Court. For the reasons stated above I find that the 1st petitioner is not entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent. The judgment of the trial Court refusing maintenance to the 1st petitioner and granting maintenance at the monthly rate of Rs. 90/- to the 2nd petitioner is hereby confirmed. The Judgment of the Sessions Judge is hereby set aside. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.