IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 242 of 2006() ---------------------- MC.170/2005 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN CHANDY, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.JOHN, VATTAKKUNNEL PULICKAL VEEDU, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- MARIYAMMA SAMUEL, AGED 30 YEARS, KUZHIPARA PUSHPAGIRI VEEDU, ELAPPUPARA P.O. VALLICODE KOTTAYAM MURI, VALLICODE, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. BY ADV. MR.R.GIREESH VARMA. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.(F.C.) NO. 242 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Thiruvalla in M.C.170/05. The unfortunate lady entered into a marriage agreement and lived with the person and now is running from pillar to post to get maintenance. But it has to be stated that at the time of the alleged marriage there was another marriage in subsistence. Parties are governed by Christian law which prevents marriage with another spouse is living. It can be seen from the evidence of PW2 the mother of the petitioner that “.......................................................... ..................................................................................... PW1 also admits in the same line and therefore it is very clear that there was a valid marriage in subsistence at the time of the alleged marriage. It is not a case where two persons living as man and woman and thereafter the women claiming maintenance from the man then the question of so many presumption may arise. But here the question is regarding the R.P.(F.C.) NO. 242 OF 2006 -:2:- validity of the marriage and when there is a prohibition for marriage when another spouse is living, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005 SCC(CRL) 787) the word 'wife' means u/s 125 to only a legally married wife. Here admittedly the lady is not legally married wife and therefore she cannot claim maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. Now an application is moved under the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act. This Court cannot conduct an enquiry as contemplated under the Act at this stage but the right of the woman to move the Court under the provisions of the said Act has to be safeguarded and she is given liberty to do so. Therefore the revision petition is allowed and the maintenance petition is dismissed. It is made very clear that this will not debar the lady from approaching the concerned Magistrate Court under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act in accordance with the stipulations thereunder. R.P.(F.C.) is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-