ORDER : The present petitioner was the petitioner in C. Misc. No.595/2015 before the learned Family Court at Mysore (hereinafter for brevity, referred to as "Family Court"), which she has instituted against the present respondent under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "Cr.P.C.") claiming maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/-p.m. payable by the respondent to her. 2. The summary of the case of the present petitioner in the family Court was that, she married the respondent on 21.06.2007 as per Hindu customs at Harihara Ukkadathi Temple and she lived with him happily for seven years in Mysuru. The husband of the petitioner was working as a driver-cum-conductor in H.D. Kote KSRTC Depot. The parents of the respondent were opposing their alleged marriage since they were belonging to a different caste. The respondent started abusing her physically and mentally demanding dowry at the instance of his family members. In one such circumstance, on 30.05.2015 the respondent had assaulted the petitioner physically in which regard, she filed a complaint before the Saraguru Police Station against the respondent. She has further averred that the respondent has now totally neglected her and he has prepared to marry another woman, as such she is entitled for maintenance. The respondent appeared in the Family Court and contested the matter by filing statement of objections, where he has specifically denied the alleged marital relationship with the petitioner. He denied that the petitioner was his wife. However, he admitted that she had filed a complaint in Saraguru Police Station, which according to him is a false complaint only to harass him. He admitted that he was working as a driver-cum-conductor in H.D. Kote KSRTC Depot from 2007 to 2015. He stated that the petitioner was a regular passenger from Mysuru to H.D.Kote in his bus and she was also running a Chit Fund business and he was a member in the said Chit Fund Scheme. Thus, they were introduced to each other. He further alleged that, due to maturity of the chit, in which he was a member, the petitioner was owing him a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. He demanded the said amount. But, she filed a false case against him. He also contended that the petitioner belongs to a different caste. She was already married to one Sri. Shivanna @ Shivaiah and she has got two children from him. 50,000/-. He demanded the said amount. But, she filed a false case against him. He also contended that the petitioner belongs to a different caste. She was already married to one Sri. Shivanna @ Shivaiah and she has got two children from him. He further stated that, he too has married to one Ms. Shruthi @ Putti and he is leading his marital life with her. The family Court after recording the evidence led before it and hearing both sides, by its impugned order dated 05.04.2018 dismissed the petition filed by the present petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come up before this Court through this petition. 3. The respondent is being represented by his learned counsel. 4. The Family Court's records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 5. Heard the arguments from both side. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video conference submitted that, even if it is taken that the present petitioner could not able to prove the marital relationship, but there is a long live-in-relationship between the petitioner and respondent, and the said long live-in-relationship would entitle the present petitioner for maintenance by considering her as the wife of the respondent. In support of his submission, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chanmuniya Vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 141 . 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent in his brief argument submitted that the petitioner has totally failed to prove that she is either the wife of the respondent or had any live-in-relationship with him. On the other hand, the respondent could able to demonstrate before the Family Court that, she had similar photograph taken with various male persons, as such, mere photographs-Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 would not make them as husband and wife. He further submitted that the Family Court after appreciating the petitioner's evidence, has properly come to a conclusion holding that the petitioner is not entitled for maintenance since she is unable to prove that, she was the wife of the respondent. 8. He further submitted that the Family Court after appreciating the petitioner's evidence, has properly come to a conclusion holding that the petitioner is not entitled for maintenance since she is unable to prove that, she was the wife of the respondent. 8. The Family Court based on the pleadings of the parties therein, has framed the following points for consideration:- (i) Whether the petitioner proves that she is wife of the respondent and he has refused and neglected to maintain her despite having sufficient income and therefore she is entitled to maintenance as prayed? (ii) What order? 9. Before the Family Court, the petitioner got herself examined as PW.1 and one Sri. G.V. Ravishankar as PW.2 and Smt. Jasheela as PW.3 and also got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. The respondent got himself examined as RW.1 and also got marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R5 and also marked one more document at Ex.C1. 10. A perusal of the materials placed before this Court, more particularly the evidence of PW.1 would go to show that the present petitioner, as PW.1 in the Family Court, in her first affidavit dated 11.02.2016 has stated that, her marriage with the respondent was solemnized in Harihara Ukkadathi Temple on 21.06.2007 as per Hindu customs. However, in her additional affidavit dated 02.12.2016, which was also a part of her evidence, she has stated that from the year 2007 to 2012, she lived with the respondent at her mother's house at Jayanagar and thereafter shifted to Mysuru, and lived there for two years. In order to prove that, she is a legally wedded wife of respondent, she has mainly relied upon two photographs marked at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 stating that they are said to have been taken with the respondent at the time of their marriage. The respondent has denied the same stating that it is a picture, which shows, he is standing with the petitioner. However, he contended that those photographs were taken when both of them joined with other chit members when they had gone on a trip. He has also contended that, in his evidence as RW.1, he has stated that the petitioner was in the habit of going on similar tours and trips with the members of her Chit Fund Scheme and on those occasions she used to take several photographs with the chit fund members. He has also contended that, in his evidence as RW.1, he has stated that the petitioner was in the habit of going on similar tours and trips with the members of her Chit Fund Scheme and on those occasions she used to take several photographs with the chit fund members. According to the respondent, Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are such photographs, which taken in one such occasion. To substantiate his contention, he too has come up with a photograph marked at Ex.R1 stating that the very same petitioner has given similar pose with another male person and Exs. P1, P2 and Ex.R1 were taken in front of the same temple and it is the respondent's friend who is seen with her in Ex.R1. The petitioner as PW.1 has not denied the same. 11. A perusal of the said photographs would go to show that Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are two photographs shown to have been taken in front of an Arch at the entrance steps of a construction. Merely because the images of the petitioner and respondent are there, either standing side by side or sitting next to each other leaving some space between them by that itself it cannot be inferred that the persons shown in the said photographs are the husband and wife, that too particularly when the respondent is very seriously disputing the alleged marital relationship between them. On the other hand, a perusal of similar photograph at Ex.R1 wherein the present petitioner is shown to have been standing along with another male person would go to show that, as like in Ex.R1, she stood next to another male person in Ex.P1, however leaving much space between them. Thus, by mere photographs it cannot be said that the woman standing next to a person would make the relationship of husband and wife. As such, merely by looking at Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.R1, it cannot be held that persons in the photographs are husband and wife in their relationship. Ex.P3 is a copy of the FIR in Crime No.128/2015 of Saraguru Police Station, where the complainant is shown to be the present petitioner and the present respondent is shown to be Accused No.1 among nine accused. The alleged offences are punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 114 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for brevity, referred to as “IPC”). The alleged offences are punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 114 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for brevity, referred to as “IPC”). Similarly, the petitioner has also produced a copy of the wound certificate at Ex.P4 to show that she was assaulted by the respondent. Needless to say that merely because a police complaint is said to have been filed or the wound certificate is said to have been produced to show that she alleged to have sustained some injuries. By that itself the marital relationship cannot be inferred, that too particularly in the absence of corroborative evidence to show that the alleged incident of criminal assault has taken place treating the complainant therein as the wife of the alleged assailant. Therefore, the documents produced by the complainant more particularly by the petitioner and more particularly Exs.P1 to P6, would not come to her rescue. 12. On the other hand, the very same petitioner has also produced a document at Ex.P7, which is shown to be an experience letter issued by Rajiv Gandhi Education and Welfare Trust and dated 24.01.2013, which mentions that Smt. Bhuvaneshwari, wife of Shivanna @ Shivaiah had five years' experience as a Warden in Spandana Pre-Metric Girls Hostel, H.D. Kote, Mysuru District, on some honorarium. Thus, some more documents produced by the petitioner would go to show that even in the year 2013 also, she has claimed and shown herself as the wife of one Shivanna @ Shivaiah, but not the present respondent. If according to the petitioner her marriage with the present respondent-L.Pratheep had taken place on 21.06.2007, then how come the name of one Sri. Shivanna @ Shivaiah is shown as her husband even after six years thereafter ie., in the year 2013, has remained un-answered by her. On the other hand, the petitioner herself as PW.1 in her additional affidavit dated 02.12.2016 has stated that she had married to one Shivanna @ Shivaiah in the year 2013 and she got two children born from him. However, she contended that she has obtained divorce from him on 30.07.2013. Even after taking the said statement as true, still her contention that she had married the present respondent on 21.06.2007 would only become she marrying another person during the life time her first husband-Sri. Shivanna @ Shivaiah. As such her alleged marriage with the respondent may become void marriage in the eye of law. Even after taking the said statement as true, still her contention that she had married the present respondent on 21.06.2007 would only become she marrying another person during the life time her first husband-Sri. Shivanna @ Shivaiah. As such her alleged marriage with the respondent may become void marriage in the eye of law. As such, the very same statements made by the petitioner in her affidavits and the documents produced by her itself clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has got no material to show that, she was a legally wedded wife of the present respondent and that their marriage was performed on 21.06.2007. Even to show that she was in cohabitation with the respondent for a long time from the alleged date of 21.06.2007 till the date of filing of the petition and that they had live-in-relationship, except her self-serving statement, there is nothing on record. On the other hand, the respondent has categorically denied those statements made by PW.1 about her alleged live-in-relationship. Even the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 also would not strengthen the case of the petitioner in any manner. Admittedly, PW.2, who is a Medical Record Technician, in JSS Hospital, had only stated that he has produced certain medical documents pertaining to the respondent which was marked at Ex.P14 and the said medical record includes an affidavit of the present petitioner. Similarly the evidence of PW.3-Jasheela, who is a Counselor for women in a Rehabilitation Center at H.D. Kote Taluk also go to show that, she had approached the complainant after coming to know that she was assaulted physically and recorded her statement wherein the present petitioner is said to have given a statement before her. Even the said evidence is taken as true, still the alleged statement of the present petitioner before PW.3 in connection with the alleged assault would not by itself make out the relationship of husband and wife between the present respondent and the petitioner. As such, the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 also would not take the case of the petitioner any further. 14. As such, the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 also would not take the case of the petitioner any further. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Chanmuniya's case (supra) in support of his submission, where the Hon'ble Apex Court has expressed an opinion that, the term "wife" which includes even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of life and strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., so as to fulfill true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that, in the said Chanmuniya's case (supra), the question of the alleged long living cohabitation between Respondent No.1 and brother of appellant's husband, living in same house and by social custom they were treated as husband and wife, after death of appellant's husband. That means the brother-in-law of the widow was co-habited with her, which their community also accepted, as such they were living like husband and wife. Whereas in the case on hand, the facts are entirely different and admittedly the present petitioner during the subsistence of her marital relationship with one Sri. Shivanna @ Shivaiah, claims to have entered into a marriage with the present respondent and claims to have been living with him for nearly seven years. Thus the observation made in Chanmuniya's case (supra) is not applicable to the case on hand. It is also for the reason that, as observed above, the petitioner has failed to prove through any means that she was living with the present respondent for the period alleged by her as a 'Wife'. It is only after analising all these aspects in detail, since the Family Court has answered the point framed by it in negative and proceeded to dismiss the petition of the petitioner. I do not find any perversity, illegality or incorrectness in the said order warranting any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:- The petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. Registry to transmit a copy of this order along with the trial Court’s record to the concerned Family Court, immediately.