ORDER : 1. The present petitioner joined by her two daughters had instituted a petition against the present respondent in the Court of the Judge, Family Court at Davanagere (henceforth for brevity referred to as “The Family Court”) under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner. The Family Court, by its order dated 06.09.2014, allowed the petition of the daughters of the present petitioner ie., Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 before it, awarding them a monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- each, but, it dismissed the petition of the petitioner No.1 before it, on the ground that she could not establish that she was legally wedded wife of the respondent therein. Being aggrieved by the said order, the said petitioner No.1 before the Family Court has preferred this petition. 2. The summary of the case of the petitioner before the Family Court was that she has been the legally wedded wife of the respondent and other two petitioners were their children. Her marriage with the respondent was performed about 35 years back and out of the wedlock, seven children were born to them. The respondent had taken care of them well for about 20 years. Thereafter, after he coming into contact with one Mrs.Halamma and getting children through her, since four years, he stopped taking care of the family ie., the petitioner and her children. He also started treating them with cruelty. He neglected to maintain them. Since, the petitioner has no independent income, they were constrained to institute a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 3. In response to the notice, the respondent appeared through his counsel and filed his statement of objections denying all the petition averments. He specifically denied that the first petitioner therein was his wife and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are his children. He contended that he has married one Mrs. Halamma, daughter of Poojar Kunta Hanumappa at Kakkaragolla village and she is his only legally wedded wife. Out of the said wedlock, he got seven children. He is working as Group ‘D’ worker in Mahanagara Palike, Davanagere. It is only with an intention to knock off his retire-mental benefits, the petitioner has filed a false petition against him. In order to prove his case, the petitioners examined two witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked the documents from Exs.P1 to P15. He is working as Group ‘D’ worker in Mahanagara Palike, Davanagere. It is only with an intention to knock off his retire-mental benefits, the petitioner has filed a false petition against him. In order to prove his case, the petitioners examined two witnesses as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked the documents from Exs.P1 to P15. Respondent examined six witnesses from RWs.1 to 6 and got marked documents as Exs.R1 to R13. The Family Court framed the following points for its consideration. 1. Whether the petitioners prove that the respondent has willfully refused and neglected to maintain the petitioners? 2. Whether the petitioners further prove that they are unable to maintain themselves? 3. Whether the petitioners further prove that respondent has got sufficient source of income to maintain the petitioners? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for maintenance amount? If so what is the quantum of maintenance? 5. What order? 4. After hearing both side, the Family Court answered point Nos.1 and 4 partly in the affirmative and point Nos.2 and 3 in the affirmative and vide order dated 06.09.2014, though it allowed the petition of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 ie., daughters of petitioner No.1, but it dismissed the petition of petitioner No.1 on the ground that she failed to establish that she was the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Against the said order, the petitioner – wife has preferred this appeal. 5. Lower Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 6. Heard the arguments from both sides. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that Exs.P1 to P8 are the photographs of the marriage of the children of the parties, which clearly go to show that the petitioner and respondent are married couple and had performed the said marriage. As such, it establishes that they were married to each other. The SSLC marks card copy of her daughter Yellamma at Ex.P9 and Voters I.D cards at Exs.P10 and 11 also shows that the respondent was the husband of the petitioner. The property tax paid receipts at Exs.P12 and 13 also go to show that the petitioner was legally wedded wife of the respondent. The SSLC marks card copy of her daughter Yellamma at Ex.P9 and Voters I.D cards at Exs.P10 and 11 also shows that the respondent was the husband of the petitioner. The property tax paid receipts at Exs.P12 and 13 also go to show that the petitioner was legally wedded wife of the respondent. Learned counsel further submitted that the evidence of the petitioner as PW1 that her marriage was performed in front of the house of her husband and also her evidence that out of the marital life between them, they got seven children born to them, has not been specifically denied by the respondent. Further, respondent also has not shown as to when and how did he married Halamma. There is no material to show that said Halamma was married to the respondent prior to the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent in the year 1974. As such, Court below has erred in arriving at a proper conclusion. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent in her brief argument submitted that the date of marriage of the petitioner with the respondent has not been stated by the petitioner. The service register at Ex.R9 maintained in the office, where the respondent works, coupled by the evidence of RW2, go to show that the respondent has shown that Halamma is his legally wedded wife. Further, the petitioner has not examined any one who have attended their marriage and participated in Panchayath, as such, the marriage is not proved. 9. Petitioner got herself examined in the Family Court as PW1, wherein she reiterated her petition averments in the examination-in-chief in the form of an affidavit. Though in her examination-in-chief, she has not stated as to on which particular date or in which year, she was married to the respondent, but, she has stated that her marriage was performed about 35 years ago. She has also stated that out of her marital relationship with the respondent, they got seven children born to them. She further stated that since about two years prior to the institution of the petition, her husband has totally neglected her family to maintain them and since the petitioner had no source of income to maintain themselves, they were constrained to file the petition. 10. She further stated that since about two years prior to the institution of the petition, her husband has totally neglected her family to maintain them and since the petitioner had no source of income to maintain themselves, they were constrained to file the petition. 10. In her cross examination, she produced eight photographs from Exs.P1 to P8, SSLC marks card copy of her daughter Yellamma at Ex.P9, her voters I.D card and so also her daughter Milamma at Exs.P10 and 11, Tax paid receipt issued by the Town Municipality, Davanagere at Exs.P12 and 13 and Voters list showing the name of her daughters and son’s along-with her father’s name at Exs.P14 and 15. In the cross examination of PW1, the witness has stated that her marriage was solemnized in front of the house of her husband and that one Sri. Manjunath Swamy as a priest and Rajpurohit performed the marriage. She also gives some details about the customary practice that was said to have been followed in her marriage with the respondent. She also stated that though marriage invitation card was got printed, she does posses the same. All these statements made by PW1 were not further denied from the respondent side. Even though the respondent who got himself examined as RW1 denied that the main person projected in the photographs produced at Exs.P1 to P8, was not that of his photographs, but, RW3 – Halamma, who is none else than his legally wedded wife and also RWs.5 and 6, who were examined by the respondent showing them as the persons participated in his marriage with Halamma, have all admitted that the person seen in those photographs at Exs.P1 to P8 is the respondent himself. Thus, none else than the alleged legally wedded wife herself has admitted and identified that the person in Exs.P1 to P8 is none else than the husband. Thus, photographs at Exs.P1 to P8 shows that the petitioner and the respondent are being shown as husband and wife and father and mother of the bride and the bride groom in the photographs and have admitted such rituals performed and a respect offered to them in their capacity as husband and wife. Had really respondent was not legally wedded husband of the petitioner herein, he would not have accepted those rituals or the respects offered to him as the husband of the petitioner. Had really respondent was not legally wedded husband of the petitioner herein, he would not have accepted those rituals or the respects offered to him as the husband of the petitioner. Those rituals also include the children washing the feet of their father and the petitioner also washing the feet of the respondent as her husband and as a part of their religious practice. 11. Even though the SSLC marks card at Ex.P9 and Voters I.D card at Exs.P10 and 11, also show that the petitioner is the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of children of the petitioner, but, there is no evidence to show that those documents were made at the instance of the respondent herein, as such, they can only further corroborate the evidence of PW1 that the respondent was her husband. Thus, the documents themselves cannot prove her marriage with the respondent. However, Ex.P15 which is in verification form regarding the additions made in the voters list shows that the respondent as the head of the family has signed the verification form admitting that himself, the petitioner Yamunamma and his two sons and the daughters are the eligible voters from his house. Thus, before the Election Authority also he has stated that his family comprises the present petitioner and children. The property tax paid receipts at Exs.P12 and 13 bears the signature of the respondent with respect to the property standing in the name of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondent being the husband has paid the property tax and put his signature. However, no explanation as to why did the signature of the respondent shown in those two property tax receipts have not been explained by the respondent. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 and more particularly, her evidence brought out in her cross examination that her marriage was performed with the respondent in front of the house of her husband and that in Exs.P12 and 13, it was her husband (respondent) who has put his signature having remained not denied, made to believe her case that she was legally wedded wife of the respondent. Even though the respondent as RW1 has denied that the petitioner was not his legally married wife, but, he has not denied that children born to her were his children. He has not given any details of his relationship with the petitioner. Even though the respondent as RW1 has denied that the petitioner was not his legally married wife, but, he has not denied that children born to her were his children. He has not given any details of his relationship with the petitioner. On the other hand, in his cross examination when a suggestion was put to him that due to his marital relationship with the petitioner, they got seven children, he has stated that he does not know the same. His answer that he does not know, cannot be understood that he has denied the said suggestion. Had he really not married the petitioner and was not the cause for the birth of seven children, he would have definitely denied the said suggestion specifically which he has not done. 12. The respondent as RW1 has not stated as to when his marriage took place with Halamma. When he has denied a suggestion that he had married the petitioner in the year 1974, it was expected for him to say when he married Halamma, for which he has no explanation. Similarly, Halamma nowhere in her cross examination has stated as to when the marriage took place with the respondent. Even though the evidence of RW2 the in-charge Manager of the Corporation of the City of Davanagere, where the respondent is working as ‘Group D’ employee, shows that the respondent has declared Halamma as his wife in his service records, still neither the said witness nor service record shows the date of marriage of the respondent with said Halamma. Even according to RW2, said inclusion of the name of Halamma in the service register of the respondent only on 04.02.1995, when the respondent is said to have filed Form No.3 in their office. According to the petitioner, she was married to the respondent about 34 years prior to the institution of the suit which goes to the year not earlier to 1977. Thus, if at all the respondent had married Halamma that could be only after he marrying the petitioner. RWs.4 and 5 though have shown to be the witnesses who are said to have attended the marriage of the respondent with Halamma, but those two witnesses in their cross examination have pleaded their ignorance about the respondent marrying the petitioner Yamunamma in the year 1974. RWs.4 and 5 though have shown to be the witnesses who are said to have attended the marriage of the respondent with Halamma, but those two witnesses in their cross examination have pleaded their ignorance about the respondent marrying the petitioner Yamunamma in the year 1974. Thus, neither RW2 nor RW5 have specifically stated that Yamunamma was not the wife of the respondent, but, their only evidence is that Halamma was married to the respondent, which marriage they attended. Therefore, the entire case of the respondent presented before the Court was only an effort to show that Halamma was married to the respondent, but, there are material from the side of the respondent to show that there was no probability of petitioner marrying the respondent prior to the marriage of the respondent with Halamma. On the other hand, the evidence of PW1 and more particularly, her un-denying the statement about her marriage with the respondent taking place in front of the house of the respondent and that the respondent has signed as husband in Exs.P12 and 13 would further corroborate the photographs at Exs.P1 to P8 and evidence of PWs.1 and 2 go to show that petitioner was legally wedded wife of the respondent. These evidences, the Family Court did not appreciate in their proper perspective, which had come to an erroneous conclusion to hold that the petitioner had failed to prove that she was the legally wedded wife of the respondent. 13. Consequently, even though the Family Court found that the respondent had failed to maintain the petitioner, but, confines its order granting maintenance only with respect to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 before it, who were the daughters of the respondent born to the petitioner No.1. 14. In view of the observation made above that the petitioner has proved that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, she is also entitled for maintenance from her husband ie., the respondent. Considering the avocation of the respondent and the circumstances of the case, the Family Court awarded a maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 before it. Considering the avocation of the respondent and the circumstances of the case, the Family Court awarded a maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 before it. In view of the fact that the present petitioner who was petitioner No.1 in the Family Court also being a lady who is major in age, like petitioner Nos.2 and 3, having the same necessities in her life with respect to the food, shelter and clothing, I am of the view that the same quantum of compensation be extended to her also. It is in that regard, the finding of the Family Court dismissing the petition of the present petitioner requires to be set-aside and her petition deserves to the allowed in part. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER (i)Petition is allowed. (ii)The order dated 06.09.2014 passed by the Family Court, Davanagere in Crl.Misc.No.195/2012 to the extent of dismissing the petition of petitioner No.1 before it, is set-aside. (iii) The petition of petitioner No.1 before the said Family Court is allowed in part and it is ordered that the petitioner No.1 therein, is entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month from the date of the petition from the respondent. (iv) The remaining portion of the order of the Judge, Family Court, Davanagere dated 06.09.2014 in Crl.Misc.No.195/2012 remains unaltered.