JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. The challenge in this revision is to the judgment and order dated 28.02.2012 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar whereby learned Judge has denied to grant maintenance to Charan Kaur (revisionist) from Paramjeet Singh (respondent) on the ground that in her statement she admitted her previous marriage with one Sukhdev Singh. She also admitted that no valid decree of divorce or annulment of marriage, from her previous husband, was passed by the competent court. 2. From perusal of record, it is evident that revisionist was living with Paramjeet Singh because his wife had died. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that Charan Kaur hails from such a family and caste, which has prevailing custom to segregate relations from her husband by mutual settlement and terms of settlement reduced into papers and a sheet is offered upon the body of a lady to cover her by a man with whom she accepts her new company/espousal and this was exactly done in the case of Charan Kaur, so taking divorce, by means of a valid decree from the court, was not necessary. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further argued that Charan Kaur and her family were living in so penury that they did not have sufficient means to knock the door of court and seek decree of divorce. Otherwise also, in the Mitakshra School of Hindu Law, which is applicable in northern India, the Custom prevails over the statutory law. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist relied upon the precedent of Bombay High Court in the case of Rajeshbai Vs. Shantabai reported in AIR 1982 Bombay 231 wherein it was held that in appropriate cases the Court can grant relief of maintenance to a woman notwithstanding the fact that marriage was void. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pyla Mutyalamma Vs. Pyla Suri Demudu reported in 2011 (2) NCC 566 has categorically stated that when an attempt is made by the husband to negate the claim of a neglected wife depicting her as a kept mistress on the spacious plea that he was already married, then the Court would insist on strict proof of earlier marriage and this is intended to protect women and children from living as destitute. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further elaborated its view in paragraph 14 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “It was still further laid down in the case of Sethu Rathinam vs. Barbara (1970) 1 SCWR 589 that if there was affirmative evidence on the aforesaid points, the Magistrate would not enter into complicated questions of law as to the validity of the marriage according to the sacrament element or personal law and the like, which are questions for determination by the civil court. If the evidence led in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. raises a presumption that the applicant was the wife of the respondent, it would be sufficient for the Magistrate to pass an order granting maintenance under the proceeding. But if the husband wishes to impeach the validity of the marriage, he will have to bring a declaratory suit In the civil court where the whole questions may be gone into wherein he can contend that the marriage was not a valid marriage or was a fraud or coercion practiced upon him. Fortifying this View, it was further laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajathi vs. C. Ganesan AIR 1999 SC 2374 also, that in a case. under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has to take prima facie view of the matter and-it is not necessary for the Magistrate to go into matrimonial disparity between the parties in detail in order to deny, maintenance to the claimant wife. Section 125, Cr.P.c. proceeds on de facto marriage and not marriage de jure. Thus, validity of the marriage will not be a ground for refusal of maintenance if other requirements of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are fulfilled.” 7. In another case of Chalamma vs. Tilaga in Civil Appeal No. 4961 of 2009, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that long espousal of ‘man and woman depicts them as ‘husband and wife’ in the eyes of society. In such circumstances, it shall be presumed that the lady was not in sheer status of kept mistress but she was wife of a person with whom she was living under the same roof. Besides, the learned Trial Court must not have ignored the claim of a baby Lakhvinder, who was born out of the espoused relations of Charan Kaur and Paramjeet Singh. 8. Besides, the learned Trial Court must not have ignored the claim of a baby Lakhvinder, who was born out of the espoused relations of Charan Kaur and Paramjeet Singh. 8. In view of what has been stated above, impugned judgment dated 28.02.2012 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar is hereby set aside with hook, line and sinker. The matter is remanded back to him with a direction to hear the matter again and deliver a fresh judgment in the light of observations made hereinabove, as expeditiously as possible but not later than four months. 9. With the above observations, this revision is finally disposed of. Lower court record be sent back. Inform the court below.