Judgment : This revision is directed under Secs.397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the alleged husband by name Subramaniam against the finding and order passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore Division, in Crl.R.C.No.126 of 1986 on 12. 1987 awarding a sum of Rs.100 each, payable by himself, as maintenance to the respondents herein, who are his alleged wife and son, and Rs.1,000 per annum towards clothing and medical expenses. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge while hearing the above revision, reappraised the entire evidence recorded by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, in M.C.No.12 of 1985 rejecting the claim of maintenance made by the respon-dent herein as contemplated under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The case of the respondents as culled out from the evidence recorded before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate as well as the petition in extract is as under: As per the Hindu Religious custom and the caste custom in the Karupparayan temple situated near Thondamuthur in Coimbatore District, the marriage of the first respondent with the revision petitioner was performed on 12. 1982, Thereafter, both of them were happily living as husband and wife and as a result of the said wedlock on 4. 19837 the second respondent, who is a minor, was born to them which was followed by the ill-treatment caused to both the respondents by the revision petitioner herein by insisting to get the money from the first respondent’s parents. As the parents of 1st respondent were poor and were not able to cope with any money or means, the first respondent was not able to comply with the wishes of the revision petitioner, and subsequently it is the case of the first respondent that both of them were driven away and from then onwards, the respondents and the petitioner were living separately. During December, 1984, the first respondent came to know that the petitioner, being employed as a Warden in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, was getting a salary of Rs.750 per month, that besides he has contracted a second, marriage and that therefore a sum of Rs.200 per month towards the maintenance of each of the respondents and a sum of Rs.2,000 per annum towards the cost of medical and cloth expenses, are required by the respondents to be payable by the revision petitioner. .3. .3. In the counter statement filed by the revision petitioner before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, the revision petitioner has denied the relationship of husband and wife between him and the first respondent. He has stated that no marriage was solemnised at any point of time between themselves, nor they lived happily as claimed. The revision petitioner denies the very paternity of the second respondent. Therefore, in the context of the said pleas, he claims that he is not liable to pay any amount towards maintenance of clothing or medical expenses as claimed. He further stated that on 112. 1984, he got married with one Shan-thi, daughter of Manivelan of Mavadiyan Koil Street, and since then onwards, he has been living with her and as such there was no communication of any kind between himself and the respondents herein. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the maintenance claim. 4. P.W.1, the first respondent, was examined and she gave evidence. During the course of evidence, she claimed that she was residing at Vedapatty Village and that the petitioner is her husband and their marriage was performed by the temple poojari in Karupparayan Temple situated in Thondamuthur in Coimbatore District and that therefore a joint petition was filed by both the parties to the Sub inspector of Police, Thondamuthur whereupon they got his blessings, and they then came to Poosaripalayam Village, where they led the family life for a period of eight months as husband and wife and that during that time the second respondent was born. Subsequently, it was the claim of P.W.1 that the petitioner perpetrated cruelty and ill treatment upon her by pressing her to go to her parents’ house and get some money and she was notable to cope up with his demand and hence she was tortured and driven away along with the second respondent herein by the revision petitioner. She subsequently stated that though the revision petitioner was employed as a Warden in the Central Prison, earning a salary of Rs.750 per month, he has discarded his wife, first respondent herein, and he refused to maintain the respondents herein. inspite of his contracting a second marriage with one lady by name Shanthi at Karur and therefore She had claimed the maintenance for herself and her minor soft. inspite of his contracting a second marriage with one lady by name Shanthi at Karur and therefore She had claimed the maintenance for herself and her minor soft. The oral evidence of P.W.2, a mill employee and resident of Vedapatty village, testified before the Court of Law is that he knew the revision petitioner and the first respondent and husband and wife and their marriage was performed on 12. 1983 at Karpagam Temple Kaly-ana Mandapam and that thereafter petition was filed before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thondamuthur, jointly by the parties to the marriage, and they thereby obtained blessings and he himself has attested in the joint petition as a witness and that Ex.P.1 was the xerox copy of the petition filed to the Sub Inspecor of Police. Of course the xerox copy of this joint application has been marked by the learned trial Judge as “subject to objection”. .5. Then the revision petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and another witness Sam Cheladurai as R.W.2. The evidence given by R.Ws.l and 2 projects only the verbatim denial of the claim by P.Ws.1 and 2 as claimed is the petition as well as before the witness box. R.W.I admits the contracting of second marriage with one Shanthi on 112. 1984. This part of the total denial by the revision petitioner has been corroborated by R.W.2. Besides he claims a legal notice was given on 28. 1983, a copy of which has been marked as Ex.R-1, to the first respondent herein and that, though it was served on her, she did not even reply the same nor has come forward with any counter case. Clinching the fact that there was no marriage or legal relationship among themselves as husband and wife and son, the maintenance petition itself has been initiated by the first respondent only with a view to blackmail the revision petitioner with an ulterior motive and therefore the claim for maintenance by the respondents ought to be rejected. R.W.2 subsequently denied that the petitioner and the first respondent lived as husband and wife at any point of time. .6. R.W.2 subsequently denied that the petitioner and the first respondent lived as husband and wife at any point of time. .6. On appraising the entire evidence recorded before him and the documents relied on by both the parties, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate rejected the claim of both the respondents on the ground that there was no ample proof to prove the relationship of husband and wife, more particularly the validity of the marriage. The trial Judge, considering the insufficiency of the legal evidence let in by the respondents with regard to the paternity of the second respondent, also rejected the claim for maintenance from the petitioner and according dismissed the petition. Against the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, a revision was filed before the First Additional Sessions Judge at Coimbatore Division, and the learned appellate Court, on reappraising the entire documentary and oral evidence let in by both the parties, gave a clear finding that though the alleged marriage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent on 12. 1983 has not been provided under the Hindu Marriage Act or the Special Marriage Act, the circumstances clearly spoken and established by the evidence tendered by the respondents through Ex. P-1, a joint petition submitted by them to the Sub Inspector of Police, Thondamuthur, clearly establish the fact that both the revision petitioner and the first respondent got married and lived together for a considerable period of time as husband and wife at Poosaripalayam Village and during that sojourn the second respondent was born. Considering the fact that the revision petitioner has denied the very factum of marriage itself and the paternity of the second respondent though he contracted a second marriage after driving away both the respondents, and he refused to maintain them, the learned trial Judge set aside the order passed by the trial Magistrate. Taking into account the evidence tendered with regard to the means position of the revision petitioner, the appellate court has directed the revision petitioner, the appellate court has directed the revision petitioner to pay a sura of Rs.100 per month to each of the respondents and a consolidated amount of Rs.1,000 per annum to both the respondents towards clothing and medical expenses. While observing and giving the above said finding, the learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the aspect of the revision petitioner being employed as a Warden in the Central Prison, Coimbatore and earning to the extent of Rs.750 per month as against the basic salarly claimed by the revision petitioner at Rs.463. 7. Against the finding and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge granting the maintenance to the respondents herein as above, the present revision is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner Mr. Arunachalam confined his arguments mainly with regard to the marriage. He contended that though the learned trial Magistrate has found that there was no valid marriage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent which has been proved or established, the lower appellate court misconstrued the recorded evidence of the parties herein on the ground that there was a valid marriage, in view of the joint living by the first respondent and the revision petitioner herein, and to this extent the order passed by the lower appellate authority is vulnearable for rejection Consequently, the learned counsel contended that at no point of time the petitioner and the first respondent were living as husband and wife, and that even so the claim projected by the first respondent that the second respondent was born out of the wedlock cannot be accepted and that therefore the quantum of maintenance ordered by the lower appellate Court is not at all sustainable. The learned counsel also contended that the reliance placed by the lower appellate Court upon Ex.P-1, the xerox copy of the complaint allegedly given by the revision petitioner and the first respondent to the -Sub-Inspector of Police cannot be relied on, for want of proof, and to that extent Ex.P-1 cannot be treated as secondary evidence in view of the specific provisions under Secs.60,61 and 62 of Indian Evidence Act. He further contended that the original of Ex.P-1 could have been made available and the Sub Inspector of Police could have been summoned and without doing so Ex.P-1 cannot be relied on. 8.Per contra, Mr.V.Gopinath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein, countered the abovesaid argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner by stating that though Ex. He further contended that the original of Ex.P-1 could have been made available and the Sub Inspector of Police could have been summoned and without doing so Ex.P-1 cannot be relied on. 8.Per contra, Mr.V.Gopinath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein, countered the abovesaid argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner by stating that though Ex. P-1, the xerox copy of the complaint was marked of course “subject to objection” it having been relied on by both the Courts below and having been allowed to be marked, it cannot be reailed back. He submitted with regard to the admission of this document that, as was observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, efforts were taken for the production of the original of Ex.P-1 on more than one occasion but without success and allowing the secondary evidence in that context will give credence to the relevat provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore the learned counsel Mr.Gopinath contended that the xerox copy of the joint petition was rightly marked as Ex.P-1 and was well considered by both Courts below. Mr.Gopinath further contended that the very contents of Ex.P-2 clearly demonstrate the fact that even prior to the date of the said complaint it was manifest that both the revision petitioner and the first respondent were living jointly for considerable time and that in anticipation of some mischief or danger from their respective parents, they thought of giving this complaint after having solemnised their marriage in accordance with the caste and custom of Hindu religions though they belonged to different castes and so on the blessing from the Sub Inspector of Police who is the law and order enforcing authority in that region, they were satisfied and they lived as husband and wife in a house for a considerable period of time that is eight months. The learned counsel pointed out that R.W.1, the revision petitioner himself, has admitted the signature in Ex.P-1 but he has denied the contents of the same and that it was not the case of the revision petitioner that his signature was obtained by the first respondent or anybody either under coercion, threat or any other circumstances and in this context the learned counsel argues that it was for the revision petitioner to establish under what circumstances he happened to subscribe his signature along with his wife as early as 1983. .9. .9. Having considered meticulously the respective evidences and claims of the parties herein, I am able to identify the total truth let in by the first respondent, by producing Ex.P-1 namely the marriage performed between her and the revision petitioner. The contents of Ex, P-1 got to show that even prior to the solemnisation of the marriage on 12. 1983, both were living together. It manifests further that our of some fear which developed in their minds, both the parties though belonged to the same village but different communities, and anticipating danger from the hands of the villagers or their parents, they thought of giving a joint petition to the law and order enforcing authority and getting his blessings to avoid any possible mishap from the relatives and parents. It is further made clear that only after getting the blessings under Ex.P-1, they came to a different village by name Poosaripalayam and lived together as husband and wife and during the said married living, the second respondent was born. True, the first respondent has not produced any evidence to prove for the birth of the second respondent either from the hospital or from the municipal authorities. May be it was due to her inability to get the document which came into existence as early as 1983. But the mere fact that no certificate of birth either from the municipal authority or from the hospital was got, it does not mean that the claim of the first respondent is a totally false one. 10. It has to be noted that the plea of the revision petitioner before the learned trial Magistrate is one of total denial as well as the denial of the very paternity of the second respondent. It is seen that he has admitted his signature in Ex.P-1 as above, but no explanation has been given by the revision petitioner. But a mere cursory reading of the contents of Ex.P-1 clinchingly proves and demon-strates the fact that the marriage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent has been solemnised in the temple as claimed and subsequently Ex.P-1 was preferred jointly by themselves for the blessings from the law and order enforcing authority. But a mere cursory reading of the contents of Ex.P-1 clinchingly proves and demon-strates the fact that the marriage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent has been solemnised in the temple as claimed and subsequently Ex.P-1 was preferred jointly by themselves for the blessings from the law and order enforcing authority. This followed by their joint living for a period of eight months in a different village and other established circumstances, as clearly spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 2, whose testimony cannot be suspected, go to show that the respondents have made out a clear case for the claim as contemplated made out a clear case for the claim as contemplated under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. However, the aspect of the tenability of the evidence of the parties, herein, has been considered by lower appellate court in detail and on perusing the same, I have not come across any materials or laches to dissent with the view and the findings by the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in awarding the maintenance to both the respondents herein. .12. On coming to legal aspects, as was concurrently held by both Courts below that the alleged marriage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent was not on per with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act or the Special Marriage Act I may observe that this consideration among the married parties has become unnecessary, under the circumstances, particularly in view of the solemnisation of the marriage in a temple as spoken by P.Ws.1 and 2 and that joint living by the parties herein for a period of more than eight months as husband and wife, and the fact that a male child was born out of their wedlock. Therefore, I may observe that a strict scrutiny for the proof of validity of the marriage as per the provisions of either the Hindu Marriage Act or the Special Marriage Act, assumes no significance in a matter when the Court has to decide payment of maintenance to the wife and children as asked for under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In such cases, the circumstances leading to the joint living by a male and female as husband and wife for a very considerable longtime in a separate house, the claim of performance or solemnisation of the marriage and the surrounding circumstances, and the result of the said marriage are to be considered by a Court of Law. This is what is enumerated as ingredients in Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in short strict proof as to the legality or validity of the performance of a marriage is only an incidental thing and cannot be allowed to be the sole cause for maintenance. It does not depend on the proof of the validity of the marriage as contemplated under Sec.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. In the light of the above legal ratio aswas observed by the lower Court, I am fully satisfied to hold that the finding given by the Additional Sessions Judge has come on par with the law, and established procedure. 14. Accordingly, I hereby confirm the finding and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge passed in the above revision petition. In Saudamini Dei v. Bhagirathi Raj, 1982 Crl.L.J. 539, the Orissa High Court has observed as follows: “Sec. 125 provides a swift and summary remedy for providing maintenance to neglected wives, parents and children by compelling the man to perform his moral obligation. In such a summary proceeding, while granting maintenance to the wife, it is not necessary to go into intricacies of law to find if there is a valid marriage.” 2. “That for the limited purpose of Sec.125 it may be inferred that there was marriage. The facts and circumstances of this case indicate that the man and the woman lived together as husband and wife and were treated as such by the community and the man treated the woman as his wife. The Panchayati Patra was is enquivocal declaration.” Even in another decision in Govindan Nadar v. Sreedharan Retna Bai Pushpa Bai, 1978 Crl.L.J. 1213, the Kerala High Court has held as follows: “It may be that the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 does not contemplate a marriage between a Hindu male and Christian Female. At the same time, the Christian Marriage Act, 1872 permits marriage between Christian and non-Christians solemnised in accordance with the provisions of the Act. At the same time, the Christian Marriage Act, 1872 permits marriage between Christian and non-Christians solemnised in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In view of this, where the marriage of Christian woman with a Hindu as conducted according to the custom of the community to which the parties belonged and the parties were living together as husband and wife, the wife was entitled to maintenance. The fact that the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband followed different religious need not necessarily mean that there could be no marriage between them and that the petitioner would not get the status of a wife even after undergoing the ceremony of marriage. It was not necessary for the Court to consider whether the ceremony fulfilled the conditions for a marriage under the Christian Magistrate Act.” 15. In the light of the above legal ratios made applicable to the facts of the instant case, I am unable to countenance the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Even with regard to the quantum of maintenance, as was justifiably contended by Mr.V.Gopinath, learned counsel for the respondent it is not excessive in the present state of affairs, namely the oricing of the commodities prevalent at present. It is admitted that the revision petitioner is a State Government employee employed as a Warden in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, but having contracted a second marriage now, he has doubled his difficulty. But even so that aspect does not mean that his first wife and the son born through her have to be discarded on the ground of his lesser earning. Whatever it may be the law does not permit the married wife and the issue born through her to be discarded by a man in any civilised country. Therefore having regard to the above norm in my mind and considering the quantum of maintenance and the quantum of amount fixed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge towards clothing and medical expenses, I may observe that they are not excessive as was rightly contended. Thus, having considered the entire evidence adduced by the respective parties herein, both oral and documentary, I fully endorse the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge while ordering the maintenance and awarding amount towards the clothing and medical expenses to be payable by the revision petitioner. No other point was argued. Thus, having considered the entire evidence adduced by the respective parties herein, both oral and documentary, I fully endorse the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge while ordering the maintenance and awarding amount towards the clothing and medical expenses to be payable by the revision petitioner. No other point was argued. Therefore, the revision petition deserves no merit for consideration by this Court and nothing was made out to interfere with the finding of the lower appellate court. 16. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed and the order passed by the lower appellate court is hereby confirmed.