As such he was number liable to pay maintenance.
The marriage was held to be invalid by the Addl.
75 per month by the respondent to the appellant.
Both the parties challenge the said decision of the Magistrate to the extent it was against them.
2003 3 SCR 999 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARUN KUMAR, J. Leave granted.
Sessions Judge, companyfirming the finding that the marriage was void.
This order was passed on 9th February, 1979.
The learned Magistrate, 1st Class, Quinlandy held that the marriage was valid and, therefore, he directed payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.
150 per month and for the daughter at the rate of Rs.
Hence the present appeal.
Sessions Judge, Kozhikode Division and that was the main reason for accepting the revision filed by the husband.
The appellant appeared as a witness as P.W. 1.
Respondent divorced the appellant on 2.5.1977.
Since the marriage was held to be invalid it followed that there was numberobligation to pay any maintenance.
125 per month.
It is respondents own case that a girl child was born to the appellant on 28.4.1973/3.5.1973.
The High Court of Kerala dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant against the order of the Addl.
The appellant was married to respondent on 28.12.1972.
It was further submitted that the child was number born to the appellant through the respondent and, therefore, the respondent had numberobligation to pay any maintenance qua the child.
No maintenance was allowed for the child because the child was believed to be number fathered by respondent.
The appellant filed a petition on 14.12.1977 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance for herself at the rate of Rs.
The Addl.
Sessions Judge, Kozhikode by his order dated 5 November, 1980 allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent husband and dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant.
This means that the marriage took place between the parties on 28.12.1972.
As per the respondents case a girl child was born to the appellant on 28.4.1973/3.5.1973.
In reply to the petition the respondent admitted the factum of the marriage, however, he set up a case that the fact that the appellant was already pregnant at the time of marriage, was companycealed from him by the appellant, the marriage was therefore, invalid and void.
In support of his case that the appellant was five months pregnant on the date of the marriage he produced on record Exhibits Dl and D3 a showing that appellant gave birth to a girl child.
The respondent also appeared as a witness.
He admitted the marriage, but submitted that the marriage was invalid and void because the lady was pregnant, which fact was companycealed from him at the time of marriage.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties at length.
