JUDGMENT G.D. Sahgal, J. - Smt. Surja Devi, daughter of Ram Lal Appellant, was married to Raj Narain Jaiswal Respondent in the year 1954. Raj Narain Jaiswal is alleged to have married a second wife Smt. Ram Rani sometime after the coming it to force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Central Act XXV of 1955) under which he could not marry a second wife during the life time of the first. It was in these circumstances that Ram Lal Appellant, father of Smt. Surja Devi, filed a complaint against Raj Narain Jaiswal and Smt. Ram Rani u/s 494 IPO. Before the filing of the complaint he made an application for permission to the court u/s 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to file the complaint on behalf of his daughter. That application was allowed. The case accordingly proceeded. It was transferred to the court of an Honorary Special Magistrate who tried it. The learned Magistrate convicted the Respondent Raj Narain Jaiswal but acquitted Smt. Ram Rani. He sentenced the said Raj Narain Jaiswal, Respondent No. 1, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Raj Na-rain Jaiswal filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge against his conviction, while Ram Lal Appellant filed an application in revision against the acquittal of Smt. Ram Rani, Respondent No. 2. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal on a preliminary point on the ground that the permission granted to Ram Lal to file the appeal was invalid as that case did not satisfy the provisions of the first proviso to Section 198 of the CPC and as the complaint itself was held by him to be invalid on account of want of proper permission, he dismissed the application in revision also. It is in these circumstances that this appeal has been filed to this Court by Ram Lal against the order of acquittal of Raj Narain Jaiswal by the learned Sessions Judge and the order of dismissal of the application in revision against Smt. Ram Rani. 2. Our brother Misra, before whom the appeal came up for admission, admitted the appeal only against Raj Narain Jaiswal dismissing it against Smt. Ram Rani. The result is that the order of acquittal of Smt. Ram Rani has become final and it cannot now be set aside. 3. 2. Our brother Misra, before whom the appeal came up for admission, admitted the appeal only against Raj Narain Jaiswal dismissing it against Smt. Ram Rani. The result is that the order of acquittal of Smt. Ram Rani has become final and it cannot now be set aside. 3. Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in so far as it is relevant for our purposes provides: 198. No Court shall take cognizance of an offence falling under...Sections 493 to 496 (both inclusive) of the same Code (IPC), except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by such offence: Provided that, where the person so aggrieved is a woman who, according to the customs and manners of the country, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, or where such person is under the age of eighteen years or is an idiot or lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf: Provided further that where the person aggrieved by an offence u/s 494 of the said Code-- (a) is the wife, any relative of the wife: may make a complaint on her behalf; (b)............ Explanation--For the purpose of Clause (a) of the second proviso, 'relative' means any lineal descendant or ascendant of the wife, her brother or sister, or her father's or mother's brother or sister. 4. The second proviso came into force on 26-12-1960 being introduced into the Act by substitution of the earlier second proviso by Central Act LVI of 1960. This proviso was probably not before the learned Sessions Judge when he heard the appeal, for he has not considered it but has considered only the first proviso. This proviso is absolutely clear and leaves no room for doubt in view of the explanation that if the person aggrieved by an offence u/s 494 IPC is the wife, then the father of the wife can make a complaint on her behalf, the father being a lineal ascendant of the wife. It is not, therefore, necessary to consider in this appeal as to whether the application purporting to have been moved under the first proviso before the Magistrate, before whom the complaint was sought to be filed and was subsequently filed, satisfied the provisions of the first proviso or not. 5. It is not, therefore, necessary to consider in this appeal as to whether the application purporting to have been moved under the first proviso before the Magistrate, before whom the complaint was sought to be filed and was subsequently filed, satisfied the provisions of the first proviso or not. 5. The appeal has, therefore, to be allowed and is hereby allowed and the order of the learned Sessions Judge allowing Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1963 set aside. The appeal being dismissed on a preliminary point shall be reheard by him in accordance with law. 6. Before we part with the case, it may be pointed out that according to the information available in this Court the record of the case itself, which was sent to this Court through registered parcel, has been lost in transit and it may not be possible to reconstruct it. The learned Sessions Judge who will hear the appeal, will make an attempt again to get the record reconducted, if possible and if it is not (sic) to do so, he will act with the (sic) his judgment in deciding the Appeal.