ORDER : The petitioner husband in the trial court took the plea that there was no marriage at all. The petitioner since his marriage with the Opposite party No.1 (which marriage has been held to have been established factually in evidence by the learned Magistrate, in the impugned order) has married again and has got three children by his second wife. 2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that since the mother of the opposite party No. 1 was the guardian who consented to the marriage, although the brother of the opposite party No 1 was present at the time of the marriage, the marriage was irregular and was therefore not a marriage within the meaning of S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The learned Advocate for the opposite party No.1 has submitted that oven if it was held by this Court that the brother of the girl was in fact present and available, at the time of the marriage, the giving of the consent by the mother, only made the marriage irregular, and that until set aside by repudiation by the wife and confirmed by the court, the marriage would remain a marriage within the meaning of S. 125 of the said Code. He has relied upon Chapter XIV, Ss. 264 and 275 of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan Law, 17th Edn The learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon S. 271 of the same book and also upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in AIR 1963 All 625 (Ayub Hossain v. Mussammat Akhtari). In that decision a Single Judge of the said High Court has held that the marriage of a minor contacted by a remoter guardian when a nearer one was present and available and when the latter did not consent or subsequently ratify, the marriage was void. 4. In the present case in the impugned order the learned Magistrate has proceeded on the basis that even if the giving of the consent by the mother was not in accordance with the order of consent in Mohammedan Law the marriage would still be an irregular one (fasit) and not a void one (batil). Moreover, I find that there does not seem to be any evidence in this case that in fact any nearer paternal relation was present and available at the time of the marriage. Moreover, I find that there does not seem to be any evidence in this case that in fact any nearer paternal relation was present and available at the time of the marriage. However, even proceeding on the basis that it is an irregular marriage, in my view, in view of the provisions of Mohammedan Law as enunciated by Mulla in Ss 264 and 275 of his book referred to above, this marriage between the parties has been established for the purpose of S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 The option of repudiating an irregular marriage given to the wife has not been exercised in this case. Even if no consummation takes place in the case of any irregular marriage, that marriage by itself does not become void (S. 267 of the said book). 5. In the circumstances, I do not find any ground for interfering with the impugned order. No argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner regarding quantum of maintenance which is only Rs. 60/- per month and I do not find the said amount unreasonable. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, this application fails and the Rule is discharged. Interim order of Stay is vacated. Rule discharged.