Judgment : The petitioner Kasthuri, party in person filed this revision in this Court, challenging the order dated 17. 1996 in M.C.No.96 of 1994, on the file of Family Court, Madurai, dismissing the application for maintenance filed by the petitioner against the respondent. 2. The chronological factors given below as could be seen from the petitioner and other records would give clear picture about this case: (i) In January 1972, the petitioner Kasthuri married one Sethu son of Thirumalai Ambalam of Melur Taluk, Madurai District. Her husband Sethu was working as a cashier in Madurai Corporation. Out of their wedlock one son and one daughter were born. Son was born in November, 1972. While she got conceived for the second time, the said Sethu drove her out from the matrimonial home, and began to live with one Parvathy. (ii) Thereafter, the petitioner herein came to her parent’s house and gave birth to a female baby. She filed a petition under Sec.125, Crl.P.C., against the said Sethu, on her behalf claiming maintenance at Rs.300 per month, in M.C. No.122 of 1977, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate No.1, Madurai. After enquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate, dismissed the petition by his order dated 15. 1978. (iii) On 16. 1978, the petitioner Kasthuri filed a revision in Crl.R.C. No.67 of 1978, on the file of Sessions Court at Madurai, challenging the abovesaid order of dismissal dated 15. 1978. On 11. 1978, on hearing both the parties, the Sessions Court allowed the revision in favour of the petitioner, and directed her husband Sethu to pay a sum of Rs.100 per month as maintenance. This order, however, stands good still, as there was no challenge by her husband Sethu. (iv) In 1983, the petitioner joined as a worker in Pandiyan dying & Printing factory at Vilachery, which belongs to the respondent Alavutheen Ravuthar. In the course of time, they became friendly. In 1984, the said Alavutheen Ravuthar, accepted the petitioner as his third wife. They lived together for a period of two years as husband and wife. Since the petitioner was living with the respondent, she did not claim any maintenance from her husband Sethu, in pursuance of the maintenance order earlier passed, (v) After two years Alavutheen Ravurthur, also abandoned her and began to develop illicit intimacy with other girls. They lived together for a period of two years as husband and wife. Since the petitioner was living with the respondent, she did not claim any maintenance from her husband Sethu, in pursuance of the maintenance order earlier passed, (v) After two years Alavutheen Ravurthur, also abandoned her and began to develop illicit intimacy with other girls. Even while they were living as husband and wife, she did not convert herself into Muslim, nor was there a registered marriage. When she insisted for the registration of her marriage, the respondent Alavutheen Ravuthar did not yield to it. Ultimately she was left in the lurch, by the respondent herein. (vi) The respondent, when this was questioned by the petitioner, being a rich and influential man, owning 150 acres of wet land and doing money lending business, with the help of Police Officers, gave all sorts of troubles to the petitioner by filing false criminal cases against her. However, the petitioner contested all the cases and got acquittal, (vii) The petitioner without any job, having found no other alternative filed a petition under Sec.125, Crl.P.C, in M.C. No.96 of 1994 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai, claiming maintenance of some lumpsum amount from the respondent on 19. 1994. On service of summons, the respondent Alavutheen Ravuthar, appeared before the Family Court and filed a counter statement on 310. 1994, alleging that he never married the petitioner herein and lived with her, and she was in the habit of filing false cases against may persons, in order to blackmail them and extract money from them. (viii) The enquiry went on between 11. 1994 and 16. 1995. On 16. 1995, the petitioner filed a petition before the Family Court, stating that since she obtained a lumpsum amount of Rs.7,500 from the respondent Alavutheen Ravuthar, sought permission for withdrawal of the petition, giving an undertaking that she would not pursue the case further, and she would not also claim any right from him in future. So, on the basis of this petition and undertaking, the Family Court, by its order dated 17. 1995, dismissed the petition, recording her written undertaking dated 16. 1995, which was made on receipt of a lumpsum amount of Rs.7,500 in the open court from the respondent. So, on the basis of this petition and undertaking, the Family Court, by its order dated 17. 1995, dismissed the petition, recording her written undertaking dated 16. 1995, which was made on receipt of a lumpsum amount of Rs.7,500 in the open court from the respondent. The learned Judge of the Family Court, also observed that the petition could not be maintained, since the relationship of husband and wife was not established by the petitioner. (ix) Though there was an endorsement for withdrawal of the case and for the receipt of the lumpsum amount, and a written undertaking dated 16. 1995 to the effect, that she would not pursue the matter further, the petitioner filed a revision, challenging this order before this Court in Crl.R.C. No.566 of 1995. The main ground urged in the said revision was that she was forced to receive the said amount at the instance of the staff of the Family Court, and threat and coercion perpetrated by the respondent and his men, and that she had subscribed her signature in the said application only under protest, and so she wanted a fresh enquiry, to enable her to adduce evidence before the Family Court, to prove her relationship with the respondent, as his wife. (x) This Court, after hearing both the petitioner and the respondent, and on meticulous perusal of the records, elaborately considered the submissions made by both sides, and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry by the Family Court, to give opportunity to the petitioner to prove her case, by its order dated 2. 1996. (xi) In pursuance of the order of remand made by this Court, the Family Court, Madurai again commenced fresh enquiry. On 4. 1996, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1. Before the commencement of enquiry, she filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.3 lakhs as permanent alimony in the same M.C. No.96 of 1994. She was again examined on 4. 1996. She was cross examined on both the dates, on behalf of the respondent. The said enquiry was over by 7. 1996. (xii) After hearing both the parties and perusing the petition, depositions and exhibits filed in this case, the Family Court at Madurai, by its order dated 17. She was again examined on 4. 1996. She was cross examined on both the dates, on behalf of the respondent. The said enquiry was over by 7. 1996. (xii) After hearing both the parties and perusing the petition, depositions and exhibits filed in this case, the Family Court at Madurai, by its order dated 17. 1996 concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to any maintenance or permanent alimony from the respondent, since the petitioner did not establish that she is a legally wedded wife of the respondent Alavutheen Ravuthar. Hence the petitioner, party in person has approached this Court, by filing this revision. 3. Both the petitioner-party in person, and the counsel for the respondent were heard, on 211. 1996, 211. 1996, 21. 1997, 31. 1997 and 20.2.1997. On 1. 1997, the petitioner, party in person again presented a petition, seeking police protection, since she apprehended danger at the hands of the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent took copy of the petition and requested time for filing counter, on 31. 1997. Then counter was filed on 20.2.1997. 4. Whatever may be the legal position, the petitioner, a party-in person, being a woman due to want of legal aid, has been driven from pillar to post. This is the second time, she has knocked at the doors of the highest forum of the judiciary of the State. The various records that have been produced before this Court by the petitioner, such as copy of petition, sent to the higher ups against the activities of the respondent and the police Officers, who alleged to have perpetrated violence on her, the copies of Judgments of lower court and appellate court, would all go to show that the petitioner, single handedly has been fighting tooth and nail in order to get justice. The records would reveal, that several cases under Sec.75 of the Madras City Police Act, were filed against her, and all those cases ended in acquittal. Therefore, the alleged fact of her having been harassed by the police at the instance of the respondent, who is said to be a highly influential man cannot be ignored, merely by saying that these allegations have not been proved. 5. Therefore, the alleged fact of her having been harassed by the police at the instance of the respondent, who is said to be a highly influential man cannot be ignored, merely by saying that these allegations have not been proved. 5. But the question to be decided in this case is as to whether this sort of perpetrated violence on her would, how far, be helpful to the petitioner, in the matter of deciding the issue raised before this Court in this case. Before considering the nature of relief sought for by the petitioner, let me at the outset consider the merits of her claim for maintenance from the respondent. (i) M.C. No.96 of 1994 was filed on 19. 1994, claiming maintenance of lumpsum amount from the respondent, before the Family Court at Madurai. In the said petition, she stated that she married One Sethu, and after four years, she was driven out by her husband and that she filed a petition for maintenance and obtained an order of maintenance from the court. She further stated that from 1984, for a period of two years. She lived with the respondent Alavutheen Ravuthar, as his third wife, and that after two years she was abandoned, and that so, she claimed maintenance of lumpsum amount from him under Sec.125, Crl.P.C. .(ii) The relevant portion of her statement in the petition is as follows: From this petition, it is clear that while the marriage between the petitioner and the said Sethu was in existence, and the maintenance order passed by the court in favour of the petitioner as against the said Sethu was in force, from 1983 she lived with the respondent as his third wife for about two years. So, on this basis, she claimed through the above said petition permanent alimony from the respondent herein under Sec.125, Crl.P.C. (iii) In M.C. No.96 of 1994, the respondent Alavutheen Ravurthur, filed a counter, stating that he never married her and he did not have any connection whatsoever with her. However, the respondent, in order to settle the dispute once for all, on 16. 1995, prepared to give a lumpsum amount of Rs.7,500 to the petitioner, since she agree to withdraw the maintenance application. Therefore, on 16. However, the respondent, in order to settle the dispute once for all, on 16. 1995, prepared to give a lumpsum amount of Rs.7,500 to the petitioner, since she agree to withdraw the maintenance application. Therefore, on 16. 1995, the petitioner, filed a petition for withdrawal of the said case, giving an undertaking that she would not pursue the matter further, and also she would not claim any right from the respondent. (iv) The contents of the said petition presented before Family Court (lady Judge) reads thus: This would go to show that the petitioner received the said lumpsum amount from the respondent in order to withdraw the case. It is at this stage, relevant to note, that the receipt of Rs.7,500 has not been denied by the petitioner, at any stage, and in fact, she would admit before this Court also the receipt of Rs.7,500 on 16. 1995, in the open court, in the earlier revision in Crl.R.C. No.566 of 1995. .(v) Unfortunately, instead of allowing the petitioner to withdraw the case, after recording the undertaking in the order, the learned Family Court Judge, discussed about the merits of the case, without examining any witness, and observed in the order that the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance, as there was no relationship between the petitioner and respondent as husband and wife, and that if at all, there was any relationship, it could be only an illicit relationship, and this Court cannot take cognizance of it, and that on some occasions, the petitioner deliberately absented herself from appearing in court, even when the witnesses were present. Having aggrieved over this observation, probably the petitioner has filed the earlier revision in Crl.R.C. No.566 of 1995, challenging that order, stating that the receipt of Rs.7,500 in open court was due to the pressure brought up on her by the staff of the family Court, and the threat and coercion of the respondent and his men. .(vi) As mentioned earlier, this Court felt that the Family Court should have given opportunity to the petitioner to establish her case, and so the matter was remanded back for fresh enquiry by order dated 2. 1996. .(vi) As mentioned earlier, this Court felt that the Family Court should have given opportunity to the petitioner to establish her case, and so the matter was remanded back for fresh enquiry by order dated 2. 1996. The relevant observation in the order of this Court is as follows: "One another significant aspect in this case made available is that while the respondent totally disclaims any nexus with the revision petitioner, he appears to have come forward with a contribution of seizable monetary amount, which appears to have been paid to the petitioner on getting the so-called written memo signed by her admittedly. It is rather curious and strange to see the attitude of the respondent to pay such a seizable amount to the petitioner when he claims that he had no nexus or connection with her. While the dispute between a man and a woman was pending before the court of law with regard to the maintenance, it is rather curious note that the woman had relinquished all of her right by giving a written undertaking instead of an order passed by a court of law. Circumstances made available in this case is thus giving every grave suspicion and as such, it is a clear illustration for the wrong procedure adopted by the learned Family Court Judge.....However, under the circumstances, I feels that the ends of justice would be met properly if I remit the whole matter to the court below to dispose the matter afresh in accordance with law. Parties must be given liberty to adduce evidence with regard to the proof of relationship of husband and wife among the parties to decide the quantum of maintenance and the period, if any, which the court below has not recorded already.“ (vii) Under the above circumstances, the learned Judge of the Family Court, at Madurai, on receipt of the abovesaid order and records and in obedience of the direction, reopened the case and commenced enquiry from 4. 1996. The petitioner examined herself as P.W.1. It is at this stage, she fried a miscellaneous application in M.C. No.96 of 1994, claiming lumpsum amount of maintenance of Rs.3 lakhs, as compensation. During the course of her examination, the judgment dated 11. 1978, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai in Crl.R.C. No.67 of 1978; holding that the petitioner was entitled to receive maintenance from has husband Sethu, was marked as Ex.A-1. During the course of her examination, the judgment dated 11. 1978, rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai in Crl.R.C. No.67 of 1978; holding that the petitioner was entitled to receive maintenance from has husband Sethu, was marked as Ex.A-1. However, no witness was examined on the side of the respondent. 6. Some portions of the evidence of the petitioner in chief as well as in cross examination would be relevant, for the purpose of discussion relating to the issue raised in this case, which are as follows: 7. It is evident from the deposition of P.W.1 that she lived with the respondent, two years as his wife, while the order of the Magistrate, awarding maintenance of Rs.100 in favour of the petitioner, as against her original husband Sethu was in force, due to the continued subsistence of the marriage between herself and the said Sethu. This deposition is fully inconso-nance with the contents of the petitioner filed in M.C. No.96 of 1994, on 19. 1994. 8. But one thing to be noticed is that she never mentioned, nor produced any material to show, that she is a legally wedded wife of Alavutheen Ravuthar, which alone would attract Sec.125, Crl.P.C, entitling the petitioner to claim maintenance from the respondent. She has specifically admitted in her deposition, that her husband Sethu is still alive and that she did not obtain any valid decree of divorce from him. Therefore, on the basis of this evidence, the learned Judge of the Family Court, at Madurai held that she is not entitled to any maintenance, much less the permanent alimony. 9. Sec.125, Crl.P.C, provides that,”(1) if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain. .(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself,... a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, from her husband." The following four ingredients have to be established by the wife, in order to enable the Court to invoke this section, for passing the award of maintenance; .(1) The wife must be a legally wedded wife .(2) The wife must be unable to maintain herself .(3) The husband must have sufficient means .(4) The wife must have been neglected or refused to be maintained by the husband. Only if all these ingredients are established, the court could pass an order of maintenance. If anyone of the ingredients is absent, then it would not be possible for the court to invoke this section. .10. In the instant case, in my view, the first ingredient is explicitly absent. Even according to the petitioner, in the petition filed in M.C. No.96 of 1994, on 19. 1994, she averred, as stated earlier, that she lived with the respondent as his third wife for two years, while the marriage between herself and the said Sethu was subsisting and the order of Magistrate, awarding maintenance to her against the said Sethu was in force. 11. Further more, admittedly she is a Hindu, and the respondent is a Muslim. Though in her evidence, she stated that the respondent married the petitioner by tying the black-bead around her neck. She herself would admit that the respon-dent knew about her past life and the subsistence of her marriage with the said Sethu. She would further admit that she insisted on several occasions for the registration of the marriage in accordance with law, but the respondent Alavutheen Ravuthar did not incline to register the same, and thereby she was cheated. The tying of black-bead cannot be construed to be a valid marriage in the eye of law either under the Hindu Marriage Act or under Muslim Marriage Act or under the Special Marriage Act especially when the parties to the marriage belong to different religions. .12. In Yamunabai v. Anantrao, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 644, the Supreme Court would observe as follows: ."The expression "wife" used in Sec.125 of the Code should be interpreted to mean only a legally wedded wife. The word "wife" is not defined in the Code except indicating in the Explanation to Sec.125 its inclusive character so as to cover a divorce. A woman cannot be a divorce unless there was a marriage in the eye of law preceding that status. The expression must, therefore, be given the meaning in which it is understood in law applicable to the parties. 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, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of Sec.125 of the Code." 13. 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, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of Sec.125 of the Code." 13. Following this decision, this Court had an occasion to deal with a similar question in Ramathal and another v. Ramasamy Gounder alias Thokathappan, (1997)1 L.W. (Crl.) 47, wherein it has been held that the wife before invoking Sec.125, Crl.P.C. claiming maintenance must prove that she is the legally wedded wife and in the absence of such proof, she cannot maintain the petition for maintenance under Sec.125, Crl.P.C. .14. One another aspect to be taken note of is the claim of Rs.3 lakhs as permanent alimony, in the petition under Sec.125, Crl.P.C. As indicated earlier, the wife could claim only Rs.500 per month as maintenance, that too, only after fulfiling all the conditions, that have to be complied with by establishing the four ingredients stated supra. In these circumstances, I am of the view, the order passed by the Family Court, Madurai is correct and perfectly valid in law, and as such, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Court below. 15. As referred earlier, the petitioner presented a petition dated 1. 1997, stating that she and her daughter are being continuously harassed by the respondent, and as such, they apprehend danger to their body, life and honour, and seeking for police protection. In the counter filed by the respondent, he denied the said allegations, stating that he had not caused any harassment with the aid of the police, nor given any trouble to the daughter of the petitioner. It is also mentioned in the counter that "without prejudice to the counter, I sincerely state that I will not do any cruelty or harassment to the petitioner in future." It is also mentioned in the counter that an application in M.C.No.4 of 1996, had been filed by the daughter of the petitioner, claiming maintenance from the husband of the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate No.7, Madurai. 16. 16. Though this petition has no relevance with regard to the point of issue, which has been dealt with as above, it is proper for this Court to consider this petition in the light of the fact that there were several cases filed against the petitioner herein by the police, which all ended in acquittal in different criminal courts. Though this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner under Sec. 125, Crl.P.C, claiming Rs.3 lakhs as permanent alimony, I feel anguish at seeing the pitiable condition of the petitioner who sent petition after petition to various authorities in the police department as well as in the Secretariat, complaining about the alleged harassment at the hands of the respondent and some named police personnel, and this cannot be rejected outright, by merely saying that she is a court-bird. These petitions ought to have been enquired and proper action to be taken, if the allegation is found to be true. .17. In that view of the matter, the Commissioner of Police, Madurai, is directed to conduct proper enquiry on her petition and give suitable police protection to the petitioner and her daughter to alleviate her apprehension of danger to their body, honour and life at the hands of the respondent and his men. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Public Prosecutor, who shall in turn send the same with his covering letter to the Commissioner of Police, Madurai, to take further course of action. 18. With these observations, the revision is dismissed.