JUDGMENT : B. Veerappa, J. This is a unsuccessful husband/defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16-8-2013 made in R.A. No. 271 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malur, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 31-8-2009 made in O.S. No. 80 of 2004 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malur, decreeing the suit for maintenance filed by the plaintiff in part, granting maintenance of Rs. 700/- per month from the date of institution of the suit during her lifetime. 2. The respondent who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court filed a suit for maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- from the defendant during her life time, contending that, she is the legally wedded wife of the defendant and their marriage was solemnised according to Hindu religious and customs about 20 years back. The plaintiff and defendant lived together about 2 years and thereafter, defendant started picking up quarrel without any reasons and also demanded dowry. But the parents of the plaintiff who are poor could not meet the demand of dowry. Therefore, defendant started ill-treating and misbehaving with the plaintiff with cruelty and assaulted many occasions and insisted that plaintiff should give written consent to tire second marriage. Plaintiff did not consented and defendant deserted the plaintiff without maintaining her by providing basic amenities. Defendant has married for second time without knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, that too, when the first marriage with the plaintiff is in subsistence. When the plaintiff's parents came to know about the second marriage, approached the defendant and questioned his acts and defendant refused to take back the plaintiff. After the second marriage, the behaviour of the defendant towards plaintiff is cruel and she is not in a position to live with the defendant. Therefore, she is residing with her parents and they are not capable of maintaining her any longer. Plaintiff is not in a position to earn independently for her livelihood. Further, she contends that defendant is having income of Rs. 10,000/- per month from all the sources and he is capable of maintaining the plaintiff, etc. Therefore, she filed the suit. 3. Plaintiff is not in a position to earn independently for her livelihood. Further, she contends that defendant is having income of Rs. 10,000/- per month from all the sources and he is capable of maintaining the plaintiff, etc. Therefore, she filed the suit. 3. On receipt of summons from the Trial Court, defendant appeared and filed written statement denying the entire plaint allegations and contended that the plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of the defendant and their marriage was never solemnized and hence the question of ill-treating the plaintiff does not arise. The defendant further contended that there is no relationship between the plaintiff and defendant as husband and wife. Plaintiff stated cock and bull story just to harass him. Defendant further contended that he is aged about 60 years, suffering from various diseases, his health condition is very poor and he is residing with his wife Padmavathamma and son Ravichandra and his only daughter by name Kanakavathi. The defendant along with his wife and children is permanently residing at Bellandur Village and the plaintiff has created and concocted the documents with an intention to spoil the life of the defendant, etc. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties/the Trial Court has framed the following Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the legally wedded wife of defendant? (ii) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendant by deserting her has contracted second marriage without her consent? (iii) Whether the defendant proves that his legally wedded wife is Padmavathamma? (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the plaint reliefs? (v) What order or decree? 5. In order to substantiate her case, plaintiff examined herself as P.W. and examined two witnesses as P.Ws. 2 and 3 and got marked the document as per Exs. P. 1 to P. 5. On the other hand, defendant's son, GPA holder, ha been examined as DW. 1 and got marked the documents as per Exs. D. 1 to D 11. 6. After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record the Trial Court has recorded the finding that, plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the defendant, defendant has deserted her and he has contracted the second marriage without her consent. 1 and got marked the documents as per Exs. D. 1 to D 11. 6. After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record the Trial Court has recorded the finding that, plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the defendant, defendant has deserted her and he has contracted the second marriage without her consent. The defendant failed to prove that his legally wedded wife is one Padmavathamma and accordingly, the Trial Court decreed the suit in part, granting maintenance of Rs. 700/- per month from the date of the suit and during the lifetime of the plaintiff. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant/appellant has filed R.A. No. 271 of 2011 before the Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malur. The lower Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire material on record and after framing points for consideration, by the impugned judgment and decree dated 16-8-2013, has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 8. Against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, did not deter the appellant from preferring this regular second appeal, as a last ditch attempt. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. 10. Sri M.D. Alavandar, learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that both the Courts below committed an error in granting the decree of maintenance in favour of the plaintiff without there being any material document to prove that plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the defendant. He further contended that defendant got only one wife Padmavathamma and when there is no marriage between the plaintiff and defendant, the question of paying maintenance does not arises at all. But said aspect of the matter has not at all considered by the Courts below. Therefore, he sought to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 11. Sri G. Udaya Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent/plaintiff sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree of the Courts below and contended that the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff clearly indicate that plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the defendant and he is bound to maintain his wife. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the present appeal. 12. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the present appeal. 12. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material on record. 13. The substance of the plaintiff's case is that, she is the legally wedded wife of the defendant and their marriage was solemnised as per Hindu religious and customs 20 years back. After living together for two years, defendant started quarrelling with the plaintiff and demanded dowry, since the parents of the plaintiff are poor, they could not meet the demand of the defendant. Defendant deserted the plaintiff and got the second marriage with Padmavathamma without consent of the plaintiff. Defendant who is earning more than Rs. 10,000/- is capable to maintain and he is duty bound to maintain plaintiff. The substance of the entire case of the defendant is that, he never married plaintiff and his only wife is Padmavathamma and therefore, the question of paying maintenance to her does not arise. 14. In order to establish plaintiff's case to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the defendant, she examined herself as P.W. 1 and stated on : oath that, she is the legally wedded wife of the defendant. In support of her case, she has also examined two witnesses as P.Ws. 2 and 3 who are the 1 eye-witnesses to the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant and who have stated on oath that, the marriage of the plaintiff and defendant took place about 22 years back and they have attended the marriage. Nothing contrary has been elicited in their cross-examination by the defendant. Ex. P. 1 is the legal notice issued by the plaintiff through her Counsel stating that she is the legally wedded wife of the defendant and she is entitled for maintenance. Though notice was received by the defendant, he has not given any reply. The said circumstance clearly indicates that defendant knowingly well that plaintiff is his wife, has not replied to the said legal notice. Exs. P. 2 and P. 3 are Voters list for the years 2002 and 2005 pertains to Tharabanahalli and at SI. No. 643 depicts the name of plaintiff and her husband's name is shown as Seenappa who is none other than the defendant. Exs. P. 2 and P. 3 are Voters list for the years 2002 and 2005 pertains to Tharabanahalli and at SI. No. 643 depicts the name of plaintiff and her husband's name is shown as Seenappa who is none other than the defendant. The plaintiff approached the Court at the age of 45 years seeking maintenance and according to the Hindu customs, no woman will falsely states her husband's name as she is having respect to her husband. The defendant has not produced any material documents to disprove the contents of Exs. P. 1 to P. 3. This is another circumstance that shows that plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the defendant. 15. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 dearly indicate that they are the eyewitnesses for the marriage held between the plaintiff and the defendant about 20 years back and they have also stated that after three years of marriage, defendant started ill-treating the plaintiff and therefore, she left the defendant's house and started living at Tharabanahalli in her parents house. To disprove the said fact, defendant has not entered into the witness-box and has not produced any material to show that P.Ws. 2 and 3 have falsely stated on oath before the Court. 16. When the plaintiff who has examined as P.W. 1 in the cross-examination has specifically contended that she is the wife of the defendant and without her consent, defendant got married with Padmavathamma, deserting the plaintiff. If the defendant has not married the plaintiff at all, nothing has prevented him to enter into the witness-box. When the relationship of the plaintiff and defendant is personal with regard to the wedding, D.W. 1, the son, who is the power of attorney holder of the defendant has no personal knowledge about the marriage of his father and the admission made by him in the course of cross-examination that he has no personal knowledge about the marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant. On these oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has decreed the suit. 17. On these oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has decreed the suit. 17. The lower Appellate Court while concurring with the findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and considering the material evidence on record, including the evidence of D.W. 1 has recorded the finding that defendant has not stepped into the witness-box to prove his alleged stand and on the other hand, he has produced by the evidence of his son as his power of attorney holder and he has produced Ex. D. 1, special power of attorney executed by defendant in his favour. On perusal of the said document defendant has not mentioned any reasons caused to him to appear before the Court and give evidence. Non-disclosure of his inability to appear before the Court to give evidence is absolutely fatal to the stand taken by the defendant. Admittedly, the suit on hand is a matrimonial dispute and the incident occurred earlier to born of the alleged power of attorney, as such he is not competent and having personal knowledge about the marriage held between plaintiff and defendant. Moreover, the evidence to be adduced by the D.W. 1 which relates to marital relationship of the defendant. The defendant should have appeared before the Court to establish his defence. The D.W. 1 in the cross-examination, specifically stated that, he did not know anything about the earlier incidents of plaintiff and defendant. Admittedly, the defendant has not stepped into the witness-box to prove his contention made in the written statement. In the absence of the same, the presumption has to be drawn under the provisions of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and adverse inference has to be drawn against the defendant that is what the Courts below have done in the present impugned judgment and decree of the Courts below. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provision of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, in the case of Lakshmamma v. Kamalamma and Others, ILR 2000 Kar. 3837 (DB) has held as under: "If a man and woman professing to be husband and wife, cohabited for a long length of time and if the Society has recognised their relationship, a presumption would arise that they are legally wedded wife and husband." 19. 3837 (DB) has held as under: "If a man and woman professing to be husband and wife, cohabited for a long length of time and if the Society has recognised their relationship, a presumption would arise that they are legally wedded wife and husband." 19. It is well-settled principles of law that, the continuous cohabitation of a man and woman as husband and wife and others treating them as such for number of years gives rise to a presumption of marriage between them. In the present case, P.Ws. 2 and 3 who were the eye-witnesses of the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant have categorically stated on oath that there was a marriage between the plaintiff and defendant and the same is reiterated by the plaintiff as P.W. 1. The said presumption is not rebutted by the defendant by producing any material documents and does not appear in the witness-box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the plaintiff; a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidhyadhar v. Mankikrao and Another, (1999) 3 SCC 573 held at para 17 as under: "17. Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness-box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Council beginning from the decision in Sardar Gurbakshsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1927 PC 230 : 32 CWN 119. This was followed by the Lahore High Court in Kirpa Singh v. Ajaipal Singh, AIR 1930 Lahore 1 : ILR 11 LAH 142 and the Bombay High Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh, AIR 1931 Bom. 97 : 32 Bom. LR 924. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat, AIR 1970 MP 225 : 1970 MPLJ 586 also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh's case. The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virendra Nath, AIR 1971 All. 97 : 32 Bom. LR 924. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat, AIR 1970 MP 225 : 1970 MPLJ 586 also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh's case. The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virendra Nath, AIR 1971 All. 29 , held that if a party abstains from entering the witness-box, it would give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan Chand, AIR 1974 P&H 7 , drew a presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 against a party who did not enter into the witness-box." 20. When both the Courts, considering the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence have come to the definite conclusion that there is a valid marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant being the husband of the plaintiff is duty bound to maintain the plaintiff, in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Others, AIR 2014 SC 2875 wherein the Apex Court in para 2 has observed as under: "2. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the Court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in a similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created where under she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds." 21. Both the Courts considering both oral and documentary evidence on record concurrently held that plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the defendant and she is entitled for maintenance and the same is based on the cogent legal evidence on record. No substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. In view of the dismissal of the above appeal, 50% amount deposited by the appellant towards arrears of maintenance shall be disbursed to the plaintiff/respondent after proper identification. At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellant seeks three months time to pay the arrears up-to-date, if any and the same is granted. Ordered accordingly.