JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J. 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-6-1984, passed in Civil Appeal No. 64-A of 1984 by the Court of Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Shahdol, (arising out of the judgment and decree dated 17-6-1980, passed in Civil Suit No. 5-A of 1978, by the Court of Civil Judge (Class II), Baohari). whereby the decree of the trial Court has been reversed and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the defendants-respondents obtained an ex parte order from the Court of Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur (District Surguja), passed in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1973, dated 7-6-1973, whereby the plaintiff was directed to pay Rs. 100/- per month as maintenance allowance to the two defendants, who were accepted to be the wife and son of the plaintiff. The revision filed against the said order (vide joint Criminal Revision Nos. 58 and 59 of 1978), was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol, on 30-5-1978. 3. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit No. 5-A of 1978 on 23-8-1978 in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II Baohari, with the assertion that the defendant No. 1 was not the married wife of the plaintiff and she never lived with him as his wife, nor he had any relations with her. It was also asserted that the defendant No. 2 is not his son. He was married to a lady by name Sundibai and with whom he is living. Out of the wedlock with Sundibai, eight children were born to them, out of whom three are still alive. The defendant No. 1, illegally and without any basis, obtained an order under Section 488 Cr.P.C. from the Magistrate. The defendant No. 1 was married to a person who is still alive. She is leading an adulterous life. As such, he sought a declaration that it be declared that defendant No. 1 is not his married wife and the defendant No. 2 is not his son, and, as such, they are not entitled for the maintenance allowance from him. 4. The defendants denied the assertions of the plaintiff and submitted that the defendant No. I was married to the plaintiff according to the caste rituals prevalent and accepted in their community. The defendant No. 1 never knew that the plaintiff has a wife living. 4. The defendants denied the assertions of the plaintiff and submitted that the defendant No. I was married to the plaintiff according to the caste rituals prevalent and accepted in their community. The defendant No. 1 never knew that the plaintiff has a wife living. It was further asserted that the defendant No. 2 was born out of such wedlock with the defendant No. 1. 5. The trial Court upheld the contentions of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. However, on appeal against such judgment and decree, the learned first appellate Court accepted it and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. It has been held by the first appellate Court that the defendant No. 1 was the "Bandhuwa wife" of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 was born of such wedlock. It has further been held that the Civil Judge (Class II) had no jurisdiction, as the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6200/-was in arrears on the date of the suit. It has further been held that the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, this second appeal. 6. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-- "(1) Whether a marriage between the Hindus in any form, a sacramental or otherwise is permissible when either party had a spouse living at the time of the marriage ? (2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? (3) Whether proper court-fee was not paid ?" 7. Admittedly, the parties are Hindus. The plaintiff-appellant has stated that Gunthibai is not his married wife. This fact has been corroborated by the appellant's other witnesses also. This fact has been found proved by the two Courts below that plaintiff has a wife by name Sundibai, with whom he was married much before, and he is living with her. The defendant-respondent Gunthibai has also admitted that, later on, she came to know that the plaintiff has got a wife living. However, she has stated that as per custom in her caste, Bandhuwa form of marriage is recognized. If a person, keeps a divorcee or a widow, he is required to give feast to caste fellows and, thereafter, they are accepted as husband and wife. 8. Clause (i) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, lays down a necessary condition that for a lawful marriage, neither party should have a spouse living at the time of marriage. If a person, keeps a divorcee or a widow, he is required to give feast to caste fellows and, thereafter, they are accepted as husband and wife. 8. Clause (i) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, lays down a necessary condition that for a lawful marriage, neither party should have a spouse living at the time of marriage. A marriage in contravention of this condition, therefore, is null and void. Section 4 of the Hindu Marriage Act has overriding effect and any custom or usage inconsistent with the Act, will have no effect. Such marriages, as provided in Section 11 of the Act, are void ipso jure, that is, void from the very inception, and have to be ignored as not existing in law. 9. The learned first appellate Court has held that Gunthibai was married to the plaintiff in Bandhuwa form of marriage as prevalent in their caste, but that custom is inconsistent with the Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore, such a Bandhuwa form of marriage cannot be recognized, specially in the presence of a spouse living at the time of so called second marriage. 10. Defendant Gunthibai has also accepted that Gunthibai was married to one Shambhu, seven steps were taken around the fire, but no marriage ceremony was performed when marriage with the plaintiff was solemnized and, therefore, marriage of Gunthibai with the plaintiff would be deemed to be no marriage and is null and void. Reference may be made to Yamunabai v. Anantrao ( AIR 1988 SC 644 ). 11. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the plaintiff had to file a petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for getting the second marriage null and void, and, therefore, the suit for declaration was not maintainable. This is a suit for declaration of character and status. The plaintiff claims that assertion of Gunthibai that she is married wife of the plaintiff, casts stigma and, therefore, he is entitled to have a declaration and was not required to file a petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. I think, suit for such declaration can be filed in the regular Civil Court. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent then submitted that the plaintiff absented from the Court of the Magistrate after service of summons and appearing in the Court and, therefore, he was proceeded ex parte. I think, suit for such declaration can be filed in the regular Civil Court. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent then submitted that the plaintiff absented from the Court of the Magistrate after service of summons and appearing in the Court and, therefore, he was proceeded ex parte. Order for maintenance in favour of the defendants was passed on 7-6-1973 and the suit was filed on 23-8-1978. Hence, it is hopelessly time barred. 13. On perusal of the record, it appears that the revision against the order of Magistrate First Class was filed in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol. It was filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. It was rejected on that ground. But this is a case where there is a continuing cause of action and arises every month. 14. The plaintiff is required to pay maintenance allowance to Gunthibai every month and so long as declaration of nullity of marriage is not made, he will have to pay the maintenance allowance during her life-time. In my opinion, therefore, provision of Section 22 of the Limitation Act would be attracted in this case, which reads as under:-- "In case of a continuing breach of contract or in the case of a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or the tort, as the case may be, continues," Here in this case, the plaintiff will be required to pay maintenance allowance every month and that stigma that Gunthibai is married wife of the plaintiff, will go on persisting and, therefore, here also, the limitation would begin to run at every moment and every month such proclamation is made by Gunthibai and the plaintiff is made liable to make payments. In my opinion, therefore, the suit for future period will not be barred. However, the plaintiff would not be entitled to seek any relief about the arrears of maintenance allowance till the date of decree and this suit of the plaintiff would be effective for the future period only. 15. In my opinion, therefore, the suit for future period will not be barred. However, the plaintiff would not be entitled to seek any relief about the arrears of maintenance allowance till the date of decree and this suit of the plaintiff would be effective for the future period only. 15. The plaintiff has not prayed for restraining the defendant from withholding the order for payment of arrears of maintenance allowance and a declaration has been sought disclaiming Gunthibai as wife which is likely to effect the liability to be incurred in future and, therefore, it would be deemed that proper court-fee has been paid. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents has then submitted that a suit in the Court having higher jurisdiction, i.e., the Court of Civil Judge (Class I), should have been filed and it was not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judge (Class II). The learned first appellate Court has also observed as such. But that objection as to jurisdiction is required to be taken at an initial stage. Section 21(2) C.P.C. clearly provides that no objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity. This objection was not taken at initial stage and, therefore, it will nut be entertained at this stage. 17. This may be made clear that Gunthibai will not be deemed to be the married wife, but the defendant No. 2 was born out of the wedlock plaintiff and Gunthibai and, therefore, in spite of the marriage being void, he will be deemed to be the legitimate son under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. He will, therefore, be entitled for maintenance from the plaintiff (father). 18. The learned Magistrate has passed joint order of maintenance in favour of the defendants, and, in the absence of specific direction of apportionment of maintenance allowance, it will be deemed that both of them were declared to be the equal sharer of maintenance allowance and, therefore, defendant No. 2 shall be entitled for maintenance allowance of Rs. 50/- per month unless the order is modified by the competent Court as per the provisions of law. 19. The appeal, therefore, partly succeeds. 50/- per month unless the order is modified by the competent Court as per the provisions of law. 19. The appeal, therefore, partly succeeds. It is declared that Gunthibai is not the wife of the plaintiff and the alleged marriage between them is null and void, but the defendant No. 2 Pardeshi will be deemed to be the legitimate son of the plaintiff. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 200/-, if certified.