S. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) JUDICIAL Magistrate First Class, Betul vide his order 29. 11. 1983 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 141 of 1981 allowed the application made by Meerabai and her minor daughter Rekha under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ordered Gundwant Pendagre to pay a monthly allowance of Rs. 125/- (Rs. 75. 00 + 50. 00) to them for their maintenance with effect from the date of the application i e. 20. 8. 1981. It is being aggrieved by the said order that Gund want Pendagre has filed the present revision in this Court. ( 2 ) IT was apparent from the evidence produced in the case that though Meerabai had married Gundwant Pendagre in Pat form on 9. 7. 1980, the said married was void for the reason that Gundwant Pendagres previous marriage with one Sayabai was still subsisting. In fact, as per Meerabais own admission, Sayabai continued loving with Gundwant Pendagre even after Meerabais so called marriage in Pat form with him. ( 3 ) IT was not that Gundwant Pendagre had not tried to raise the above said point with regard to invalidity of the marriage in his pleadings. He had made an application on 5. 3. 1982 to make the appropriate amendment in his pleadings in the above regard. The said application was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 30. 3. 1982. In fact, the Judicial Magistrate was informed by the counsel for Meerabai on 208. 1982 that Meerabai did not want to file any reply to the amendment. It is true that the amendment remained to be formally incorporated in the pleadings of Gundwant Pendagre. But, then, as the amendment had been allowed under the inherent powers of the Court and there was no provision similar to Order 6 Rules 17 and 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Code of Criminal Procedure, mere failure on the part of Gundwant Pendagre to amend his pleadings after order did not preclude him from relying on the amendment. The reason was that from a perusal of the evidence produced in the case it was obvious that both the parties were alive to the fact of the amendment in question having been allowed by the Court and adduced their evidence on that basis. The reason was that from a perusal of the evidence produced in the case it was obvious that both the parties were alive to the fact of the amendment in question having been allowed by the Court and adduced their evidence on that basis. Thus, no material prejudice having been caused in the matter to Meerabai, it was surprising why the Judicial Magistrate did not consider the point with regard to invalidity of the marriage in its order dated 29. 11. 1983. ( 4 ) IN as much as the word wife as used in Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code did not include a kept or concubine, the Judicial Magistrate erred in awarding the monthly allowance of Rs 75/- for the maintenance of Meerabai. To the said extent the order dated 29. 11. 1983 passed by the Judicial Magistrate deserves to be set aside. ( 5 ) AS far as the monthly allowance of Rs. 50/- awarded by the Judicial Magistrate for the maintenance of minor child Rekha is concerned the same was properly awarded by him and does not call for any interference in this revision. Under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, even an illegitimate child was entitled to receive maintenance from a person responsible for giving birth to it. It is true that Meerabai gave birth to the minor child on 20. 1. 1981 and as such, there was a gap of only 195 days between the date of her alleged marriage in Pat for with Gundwant pendagre and the birth of the minor child. But, then, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahendra Manilal Nanavati v. Sushila Mahendra Nanavati, the gap in question providing a gestation period of more than 185 days, a presumption about the minor child being born as a result of admitted sexual relationship between the parties could be legitimately drawn. The said presumption. having not been rebutted, was sufficient for the disposal of the application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code made on behalf of the minor child for grant of maintenance. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the revision is partly allowed. The order dated 29. 11. 1983 of the Judicial Magistrate in so far as it relates to award of maintenance of Rs. 75/- per month to Meerabai is set aside. The rest of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate is maintained. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the revision is partly allowed. The order dated 29. 11. 1983 of the Judicial Magistrate in so far as it relates to award of maintenance of Rs. 75/- per month to Meerabai is set aside. The rest of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate is maintained. Revision party allowed. .