IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 RPFC.No. 90 of 2008() --------------------- MC.201/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT : --------------------------------------- BHAGYAMERI W/O. GOPALAN, SUCRAN VEEDU, CHANDRAPURAM PO VALAYAR DAM, PALAKKAD BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- P. GOPALAN MULLANTHODE, KANNIMARI PO CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- R.P.(FC). No. 90 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of her claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. She had claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per mensum from the respondent who, she claimed was her legally wedded spouse. 2. There was serious contention on the question as to whether the respondent is the legally wedded spouse of the petitioner. Reliance was placed, Exts.D1 and D2 judgment and decree of the Civil court. It was contended that the question is not any more open and the same has become final with the Civil court holding that there is no legal matrimony between the petitioner and the respondent. The learned Judge of the Family Court, in these circumstances, accepted the binding verdict of the Civil court which continues to remain binding on the parties. It was in these circumstances that the learned Judge of the Family Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the claim for maintenance. 3. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned R.P.(FC) No.90 OF 2008 2 order. Called upon to explain the specific nature of the challenge which the petitioner wants to raise against the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that the petitioner intends to challenge Exts.D1 and D2 orders. They, it is seen were passed as early as on 30.03.2005 and it would be improbable and artificial to expect the petitioner to initiate the challenge against the said judgment and decree now. 4. Another contention has been raised that Exts.D1 and D2 did not have any bearing on the claim for maintenance of the petitioner as the claim for maintenance did not arise for consideration in that proceedings. This contention is also without any merit. There was adjudication on the disputed marital status of the rival contestants in that proceedings. The Civil court having declared that the petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of the respondent, the petitioner cannot obviously claim relief under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 5. This R.P.(FC) is, in these circumstances, dismissed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb R.P.(FC) No.90 OF 2008 3 R.P.(FC) No.90 OF 2008 4