ORDER : The revision on hand is directed against the order passed by Family Court, Thalassery on 28.04.2018 in M.C.No.248 of 2017. The revision is filed by the counter petitioner in the M.C. seeking to set aside the order directing him to pay maintenance. The parties to this Revision Petition shall be referred to hereinafter as the respondent and the petitioner in accordance with their status before the Family Court. 2. At the outset, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the alleged marriage between the parties to the revision petition is now declared by a civil court as null and void and therefore the petitioner lost her status as wife of the respondent and is not entitled to get maintenance from him. Certified copies of the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2020 in O.P.No.406 of 2017 of the Family Court, Kannur declaring the marriage as null and void are produced in the revision respectively as Annexures-A1 and A2. The learned counsel has also relied on Santosh (Smt) Vs. Naresh Pal [ (1998) 8 SCC 447 ] to rest his contention that the judgment of a civil court will bind the court dealing with a claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. Sri.K.Ashis, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that for being entitled to get maintenance, a lady need not establish her marital bondage with the counter petitioner from whom the claim for that is made. According to him a lady who is in a live-in relationship with the counter petitioner is also entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. According to him, the petitioner had lived with the respondent as husband and wife for a certain period and therefore, her claim for maintenance cannot be thrown aside by reversing the impugned order. 4. In Santosh's case supra, the question considered by the Apex Court was whether the appellant before it, is the married wife of the respondent therein who had neglected to maintain her and therefore, is entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate based on the evidence available to it had arrived at a finding that the husband entered into a second marriage with the lady, a divorcee, after obtaining a divorce from his first wife and therefore is entitled to get maintenance. The High Court took a contrary view that the lady had her first husband and the first marriage having not been established by her as dissolved, is not entitled to get maintenance. In the appeal preferred against the divergent views taken by the courts as above, the Apex Court held: “2. …......... These are the questions which are required to be thrashed out finally in civil proceedings. In a proceeding for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC the learned Magistrate was expected to pass appropriate orders after being prima facie satisfied about the marital status of parties. It is obvious that the said decision will be a tentative decision subject to final order in any civil proceedings, if the parties are so advised to adopt. Consequently, in our view the High court was not justified in interfering with the pure finding of fact reached by learned Judicial Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 125 CrPC and therefore, only on this short ground and without expressing any opinion on the marital rights of the parties which may have to be adjudicated in civil proceedings, the order of the learned Magistrate passed under Section 125 CrPC will have to be affirmed and the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside........” 5. It is discerned from the above that even if a contention was raised challenging the validity of marriage of the parties to the maintenance case, the court seized of the case need not have to conduct an in-depth inquiry into that issue, it being totally outside its jurisdiction. Only a Civil court is empowered to adjudicate on the validity of marriage and to arrive at a finding on that. A court dealing with a maintenance case has only to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction about the marital status of the parties, from the materials placed for its consideration. The impugned order appears to have been passed by the Magistrate after arriving at a prima facie opinion about the marriage of the parties and therefore, cannot be said to be illegal. 6. The validity of the marriage was considered by the Family Court, Kannur in O.P.No.406 of 2017 vide Annexures A1 and A2 and declared as null and void for the reason that it was contracted by the petitioner with the respondent during subsistence of her earlier marriage with another man. 6. The validity of the marriage was considered by the Family Court, Kannur in O.P.No.406 of 2017 vide Annexures A1 and A2 and declared as null and void for the reason that it was contracted by the petitioner with the respondent during subsistence of her earlier marriage with another man. Certified copy of the judgment is also made available to convince this Court. It was also put to notice that the judgment is not taken up in challenge till date and thus the declaration of the marriage by a competent court as null and void has become final. Therefore, this Court exercising revisional jurisdiction from an order passed in the maintenance case is bound by the above declaration which has reached finality. 7. Magistrate in the case on hand having passed the impugned order based on a prima facie satisfaction of the marital status of the parties from the materials available then, cannot be blamed for that. But, it being bound by the declaration now made that the marriage is null and void, the impugned order is legally unsustainable and deserves to be reversed. 8. Clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and explanation to sub-Section (1) of Section 125 assume relevance in the wake of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a lady in live-in relationship with a man is also entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and are extracted hereunder; “125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.- (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain- (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) xxxxxxxxx (c) xxxxxxxxx (d) xxxxxxxxx …...........as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct : xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx “Explanation.- For the purposes of this Chapter,- (a) xxxxxxxxxxx (b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.” (emphasis supplied) The words emphasized caution that a lady married to a man and living separated from him for some valid cause and a lady married, but later on has been divorced by him or has obtained a divorce from him and not re-married, alone are entitled to get maintenance. It is clear from the above that, a lady in a live-in relationship is not entitled to get maintenance. The Apex Court in Santosh's case supra has only said that a detailed enquiry on marital status of the parties is not called for in a maintenance case, but, formation of a prima facie opinion based on materials produced is required. 9. The Family Court has found on the basis of the evidence before it that the petitioner married the respondent during pendency of her earlier marriage and therefore declared the disputed marriage as null and void. Therefore, a civil court in exercise of its jurisdiction over the issue has now adjudicated and granted a declaration that the marriage is null and void. When viewed on the basis of the judgment, the parties to the M.C never had the status of husband and wife to be bound by the impugned order of maintenance. In the result, R.P(FC) stands allowed and the order passed by the Family Court, Thalassery on 28.04.2018 in M.C.No.248 of 2017 stands set aside. Amount if any stands in deposit vide interim order passed by this Court, shall be released to the revision petitioner on appropriate application being made in that regard.