IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 RPFC.No. 334 of 2008() ---------------------- MC.98/2006 of Family Court, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER (S): -------------------- NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, KANJIRAVELIL, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GOURIAMMA, AGE 58 YEARS, KURUPPAMKUDY PUTHENPURA VEETTIL, VENDUVAZHY KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- R.P.F.C.No.334 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November 2008 O R D E R The petitioner in this R.P.F.C assails an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per mensum to the claimant who asserted that she was the legal wife of the petitioner herein. 2. According to her, the marriage had taken place on 08/09/1968. A child who has now attained majority aged about 37 years and employed abroad was born in such relationship. The petitioner took courage to take up a stand of total denial of marriage and paternity. According to him, there was no marriage at all and he had no obligation to pay any maintenance to her. 3. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant/wife examined herself as PW1 and two witnesses as PWs 2 and 3. She proved Ext.A1 marriage certificate and Ext.A2 sale deed. Ext.X1 certified copy of the marriage register was also proved. The petitioner examined himself as RW1 and proved Exts.B1 to B9. 4. The learned Judge of the Family Court on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion R.P.F.C..No.334/08 2 that a valid marriage between the claimant and the petitioner herein has been established. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned order. 5. The petitioner has preferred this R.P.F.C. In the R.P.F.C, a totally different plea is seen raised. He wants to contend with the help of Annexure A, a registered document that the marriage between the petitioner and the claimant has subsequently been dissolved as per document dated 15/10/1970. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that the impugned order may be set aside inasmuch as the registered document reveals that there is no legal matrimony subsisting between the claimant and the petitioner herein. 6. Whether legal matrimony continues or not, in view of the explanation (b) to Section 125(1) Cr.P.C, the claimant is entitled for maintenance notwithstanding Annexure A. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that Annexure A can have no reflection on the claim of the claimant for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C as even a divorced wife is entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notwithstanding the indiscretion committed by the petitioner of R.P.F.C..No.334/08 3 raising such an untenable plea in the light of Annexure A before the Family Court, it may be clarified that the impugned order shall not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to contend that the marriage between the claimant and the petitioner does not now subsist. 8. It is now trite that orders under Section 125 Cr.P.C may, at worst, only cast a shadow on the status of the parties and such cloud can be removed by initiating appropriate proceedings. Orders of courts exercising jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C cannot fetter the option of the parties in appropriate civil proceedings to invite decisions on the disputed status of the parties. In that view of the matter, I am satisfied that this R.P.F.C can be dismissed with the observation that the impugned order shall not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner in appropriate proceedings to raise a plea and contend that the marriage does not subsist in the light of Annexure A registered document of dissolution of marriage. 9. With the above observations, this R.P.F.C is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr R.P.F.C..No.334/08 4 R.P.F.C..No.334/08 5 R.BASANT, J R.P.F.C.No. ORDER 11/02/2008