ORDER S.L. Kochar, J. This Revision aims at setting aside the order dated 18-11-2003 passed by the learned Fifth Addl. Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Cr. Rev. No. 131/2003 thereby setting aside the order dated 10-5-2003 passed in Misc. Cri. Case No. 08/01 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore. The learned Revisional Court granted maintenance to the wife Rekhabai at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- from 17-3-2001 with costs Rs. 1000/- while the learned Trial Court allowed the application only in respect of non-applicant No. 2 granting him maintenance @ 1000/- per month from the date of the order till he attains majority and costs Rs. 500/-, against the aforesaid order, the applicant/husband has preferred this revision. Brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the Non-applicant Rekhabai and her son Kamal had filed an application for grant of maintenance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Tarana, on the ground that the applicant is the husband of Non-applicant Rekhabai and she gave birth to a son named Kamal. According to Non-applicant Rekhabai in their community, there is custom of dissolution of marriage and custom of second marriage in NATRA form of marriage. She had divorced her former husband named Kailash according to community custom prevailing in Khati Samaj. Prior to the present application u/s 125, Criminal Procedure Code the first application was dismissed vide case No. 11/90 by order dated 1-12-1997. Therefore, at the time of death of the father of applicant Harinarayan, there was a compromise between the parties in presence of Panchas and after executing a document Ex. A/2 on 10-9-2000 Harinarayan took her and son Kamal and they started living together as husband and wife. Thereafter, the applicant Harinarayan started beating her and also levelling allegations against her character and he ultimately turned her out of the house for which she lodged a report Ex. A/3 at the Police Station Maksi. The appellant refused to maintain her. Therefore, she filed an application for grant of maintenance. She examined herself and witnesses Dayashankar, Nandkishore, Haricharan, Shivnarayan, Babulal and Mohanlal. The applicant, by filing reply, denied the claim of the wife/non-applicant. He had refused to accept her as his wife and Kamal to be his son. He also denied the second marriage in Natra-form of marriage, prevalent in his community. He has only examined himself in support of his contention. The applicant, by filing reply, denied the claim of the wife/non-applicant. He had refused to accept her as his wife and Kamal to be his son. He also denied the second marriage in Natra-form of marriage, prevalent in his community. He has only examined himself in support of his contention. The learned trial Court refused to grant maintenance to the non-applicant on the ground that Harinarayan former wives were alive and the former husband of non-applicant Rekhabai was also alive. Therefore, their marriage was null and void and she cannot claim maintenance from the applicant. However, the learned Trial Court granted maintenance to the son Kamal. Against this order, the applicant did not prefer any revision and the non-applicant/wife challenged the same before the Lower Revisional Court. The learned Lower Revisional Court, after hearing the rival contentions and considering the various pronouncements of the High Court and the Apex Court as mentioned in Para 7 of its order, allowed the revision holding that the non-applicant/wife has proved that in their community i.e. Khati-community there was a custom of dissolution of marriage and second marriage in Natra-form. She and Harinarayan after giving divorce to their previous spouses in accordance with the customs prevalent in the community entered into a Natra-form of marriage. The learned Revisional Court set aside the order of the learned Trial Court and granted maintenance to the wife/non-applicant @ Rs. 1,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application. Learned counsel for the applicant relying on the Supreme Court judgments rendered in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another, and Khemchand Om Prakash Sharma v. State of Gujarat, (2000) 3 SCC 753 has submitted that the first wife of the applicant and the husband of the Non-applicant were alive and there was no annulment of marriage by a decree of divorce on the grounds mentioned u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), between the spouses. The marriage between the applicant and the non-applicant was null and void and she could not claim maintenance. The marriage between the applicant and the non-applicant was null and void and she could not claim maintenance. The learned counsel for the applicant has very vehemently and strenuously submitted that in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, there is no other provision except section 13 of the Act which provides grounds for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce and in the present case, on the ground mentioned in section 13 of the Act, there was no dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce between the former wife of the applicant and husband of Non-applicant. The marriage between the applicant and the Non-applicant was null and void, therefore, she could not claim maintenance from the applicant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Non-applicant, relying on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Reema Aggarwal vs. Anupam and others, 2004 SCC (Cri) 699, Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Praya Dixit and Another, , Manohar vs. Kamlabai, 1990 (1) MPWN 185 and Mangilal vs. Smt. Ratnaprabha, 1990 (1) MPWN 186 , has submitted that the Non-applicant/wife and the applicant started living as husband and wife after dismissal of her first application as per settlement and decision by the community-panchayat and there is positive admission by the applicant in para 7 of his statement that in their community, the custom of dissolution of marriage and second marriage in Natra-form is prevalent. Therefore, the learned Lower Revisional Court has rightly granted maintenance to the Non-applicant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, and in view of the pleadings of the non-applicant/wife and her statement on oath as well as the statements of her witnesses namely Dayashankar, Nandkishore, Haricharan, Shivnarayan, Babulal and Mohanlal, she has proved the factum of marriage with the applicant and according to the custom Natra form of marriage is prevalent in the community after dissolution of marriage. According to their community custom with their previous spouses. The applicant, however, did not examine any witness except himself and in para 7, he has accepted that he and the non-applicant belong to the Khati community. In their community, there is custom of dissolution of marriage (CHHOR CHHUTTI) as well as the second marriage in Natra form with a divorced man or woman. In Para 8, he has expressed his ignorance about the customary divorce of Non-applicant Rekhabai with her former husband Kailash. In their community, there is custom of dissolution of marriage (CHHOR CHHUTTI) as well as the second marriage in Natra form with a divorced man or woman. In Para 8, he has expressed his ignorance about the customary divorce of Non-applicant Rekhabai with her former husband Kailash. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the lower Revisional Court has rightly held that there was a dissolution of marriage of the applicant and the Non-applicant with their previous spouses and the applicant and the non-applicant entered into marriage and also lived as husband and wife. Therefore, the Non-applicant is entitled to the maintenance from the applicant/husband. In the Act of 1955, apart from section 13 regarding divorce between the spouse, there is another provision i.e. section 29, sub-section (2) which reads as under: 29(2). Nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect any right recognized by custom or conferred by any special enactment to obtain the dissolution of a Hindu marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act. In view of section 29, sub-section (2) of the Act, dissolution of marriage according to custom prevalent in Khati community would be valid dissolution between the applicant and the non-applicant with their former spouses. Both the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant i.e. Smt. Yamunabai vs. Anantrao (supra) and Khemchand vs. State of Gujarat (supra) are not helpful to the applicant in the facts and circumstances of the present case because in both the cases it was an admitted position that the spouses alive and there was no annulment of marriage by a decree of divorce or otherwise. In the judgment of Khemchand Omprakash (supra) the Supreme Court has held that: The short question that arises for consideration link this appeal is whether the respondent Jasumatiben, who claimed maintenance, being the wife of the applicant, can be allowed any maintenance on the admitted position that the applicant's first wife is alive and there has been no annulment of marriage by a decree of divorce or otherwise. During the subsistence of the first marriage, any second marriage is null and void, and therefore, the Courts below committed a mistake in granting maintenance in favour of Jasumati Ben, who claimed maintenance as the second wife of the applicant. We, therefore, set aside the grant of maintenance in favour of Jasumatiben alone. During the subsistence of the first marriage, any second marriage is null and void, and therefore, the Courts below committed a mistake in granting maintenance in favour of Jasumati Ben, who claimed maintenance as the second wife of the applicant. We, therefore, set aside the grant of maintenance in favour of Jasumatiben alone. Needless to mention the children, namely, Trupti and Vaishali will continue to get maintenance, as directed. The abovementioned view of the Supreme Court i.e. "no annulment of marriage by a decree of divorce or otherwise" also positively establishes that for annulment of marriage by a decree of divorce, there can be some other form or mode of annulment of marriage and that can be only u/s 29(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad (supra) has ruled that in maintenance proceedings u/s 125, Criminal Procedure Code strict proof of marriage is not required. It is sufficient if claimant prima facie satisfies the Court that the claimant and her husband lived as husband and wife. In the instant case, more than prima facie evidence has been adduced by the Non-applicant/wife regarding performance of marriage and living as wife with the applicant. In the light of the foregoing factual and legal aspects involved in the present case, this Court does not find any substance in this revision. Accordingly, this revision is hereby dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed