Short Note : 1. It was alleged that Mst. Sahodri was married to the complainant and living with him. On 2-11-1971 when the complainant had gone out of the village, Mst Itwariya, the mother of Mst. Sahodari, came to his house and took away his wife along with her. In a search made by the complainant he could after about 8 or 10 days know that applicant Kanchan had kept Mst. Sahodri as his wife. The complainant, therefore, filed a complaint under section 497 IPC against Kanchan and Mst. Itwariya. The trial Magistrate acquitted Mst. Itwariya but convicted Kanchan under section 497 IPC. Held : Complainant Anandlal (P.W.1) in para 7 of his statement stated that when he was 10 years of age, his marriage with Mst. Sahodri had taken place. According to him, the marriage was performed by Brahmin Gantdhari (P.W.4). This Gantdhari has not at all supported the complainant or the fact of marriage. The other witness to prove the marriage was Lakshandhari (P.W.3), a barber, who claims to have gone in the Barat also. He, however, could not name any other person who had gone in the Barat. He even could not give out the name of any person of the village in which the Barat had gone. Initially he even denied the name of the person at whose house the Barat of the complainant had gone, but subsequently he gave out the name to be Ranchhoo. The other witness to prove the marriage is one Jagnarain (P.W.2). His age at the time of evidence has been stated to be 35 years. Considering the age of the complainant and the age at which he was married, the age of Jagnarain (P.W.2) at the time of the alleged marriage may have been roughly about 20 years. In cross-examination he could give out the name of only one person who went in the Barat but could not name anyone else. No witness from the village to which Mst. Sahodri belonged and where the marriage party is said to have gone has been examined. The evidence does not at all prove that the marriage of the complainant was performed with Mst. Sahodri. It was necessary for the complainant to set out the facts and circumstances surrounding the ceremony of the marriage to determine the question whether the marriage, in fact, took place in between Anandlal and Mst. Sahodari. The evidence does not at all prove that the marriage of the complainant was performed with Mst. Sahodri. It was necessary for the complainant to set out the facts and circumstances surrounding the ceremony of the marriage to determine the question whether the marriage, in fact, took place in between Anandlal and Mst. Sahodari. Since the fact of marriage of the complainant with Mst. Sahodri is not proved, it is not necessary to consider any other question as was raised on behalf of the applicant. Revision allowed.