Judgment : M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is filed by the petitioners, the alleged wife and son, against the order passed in M. C. NO. 15 of 1991, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Mettupalayam, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners against the respondent claiming maintenance. ( 2 ) THIS revision has to be disposed of on a short ground. It is the case of the petitioner that the marriage was performed in the year 1960, between the 1st petitioner and the respondent and for 12 years they lived together and out of their wedlock, the 2nd petitioner was born. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioners, during the course of enquiry, P. Ws. 1 to 8 were examined, Exs. P. I to P. 5 were marked, while on the side of Respondent R. Ws. 1 to 7 were examined and Ex. R. 1 was marked. ( 4 ) AFTER consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary adduced by both the parties, the learned trial Magistrate, dismissed the maintenance application on various grounds. Challenging this Order, the present revision has been filed by the 1st petitioner/wife on her behalf and on behalf of her minor son, the 2nd respondent herein. ( 5 ) THOUGH, there were various grounds discussed and dealt with by the trial Court for dismissing the application for maintenance, one ground, viz, failure on the part of the 1st petitioner to prove the divorce effected or the dissolution of marriage that took place in between the respondent herein and one Poovaathal, prior to the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent seems to be formidable learned counsel for the petitioners submitted, that even according to the petition submitted before the trial Court by the petitioners, that there was a first marriage that took place in between the respondent and said Poovaathal in the year 1940 and they lived together as husband and wife only till 1957, when release deed Ex. PS was executed by the said Poovaathal, and registered in the Sub-Registrars office. On the basis of Ex. PS document, it is contended by the petitioners, that since divorce was effected in the year 1957 in between the respondent and the said Poovaathal, the marriage held between the respondent and the 1st petitioner in the year 1960 must be held to be valid. ( 6 ) MR. On the basis of Ex. PS document, it is contended by the petitioners, that since divorce was effected in the year 1957 in between the respondent and the said Poovaathal, the marriage held between the respondent and the 1st petitioner in the year 1960 must be held to be valid. ( 6 ) MR. S. N. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the decision in Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and another, in support of his submission that the wife, before invoking Section 125 Cr. P. C. claiming maintenance must prove that she is the legally wedded wife. The observation of the Supreme Court reads thus: The question then arises as to whether the expression wife used in Sec. 125 Of the Code should be interpreted to mean only a legally wedded wife not covered by Sec. 11 of the Act. The word is not defined in the Code except indicating in the Explanation its inclusive character so as to cover a divorce. A woman cannot be a divorcee unless there was a marriage in the eye of law preceding that status We, therefore, hold that the marriage of a woman in accordance with the Hindu rites with a man having a living spouse is a complete nullity in the eye of law and she is not entitled to the benefit of Sec. 125 of the Code. ( 7 ) MR. A. S. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that by virtue of Section 29 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the divorce could be effected through custom and in those cases Section 13 of the Act need not be invoked. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision in Are Lachiah v. Are Raja Mallu, to show that the marriage could be divorced even under custom under Section 29 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. There is no dispute in regard to this proposition. The point to be decided in this case; whether there is any evidence available to prove the validity of the second marriage. ( 8 ) THERE is no evidence available that the first marriage was cancelled by virtue of Ex. There is no dispute in regard to this proposition. The point to be decided in this case; whether there is any evidence available to prove the validity of the second marriage. ( 8 ) THERE is no evidence available that the first marriage was cancelled by virtue of Ex. P. 5 release deed according to custom and so under Section 13 of the Act, the parties must approach the Court by filing an application for divorce, either on valid grounds or on mutual consent and can get the marriage cancelled. The divorce otherwise effected, cannot be said to be a divorce under the eye of law. In the instant case, in 1957, the release deed was executed by the first wife. According to the 1st petitioner, the marriage between herself and the respondent was in 1960. Admittedly there was a first marriage between the respondent and Poovaathal existing. Moreover R. W. 1 the respondent was examined before the trial Court to prove that there was no marriage between himself and the 1st petitioner. RW. 2. Poovaathal the wife of respondent and RW. 3, his son deposed. that there was no such second marriage as alleged by the 1st petitioner. Even assuming that the second marriage was held as claimed by the petitioners in the year 1960, it cannot be held to be a valid one in the absence of any valid order passed by the Court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, cancelling the said valid marriage. ( 9 ) SO, in these circumstances, I feel that the petitioner, who cannot be called to be a legally wedded wife of the respondent cannot maintain the petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. In that view of the matter, the revision, which has no merits, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.