JUDGMENT : A.P. Ravani, J. The petitioner Puniben claims to be the wife of opponent No. 2 Tejabhai Modabhai. The petitioner filed Criminal Case No. 45 of 1980 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate (15th Court). Ahmedabad and prayed that she was the legally married wife of opponent No. 2 and that out of the wedlock a son, named Raju, was born. It was alleged that opponent No. 2 was negligent in maintaining her and without there being any reason whatsoever he was not taking care of herself and minor son Raju. Therefore she claimed that she was entitled to stay separate and claim maintenance, for herself and for the minor son Raju. Opponent No. 2 appeared before the trial Court and contended that there was no marriage whatsoever between the parties and that the child alleged to have been born out of the lawful wedlock was not his child. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. On overall appreciation of evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein i. e. Puniben, was the legally married wife of opponent No. 2-Tejabhai, that opponent No. 2 Tejabhai and neglected to maintain her and that the petitioner-wife was entitled to claim Rs. 100/- per month as and by way maintenance for herself and Rs. 50/- per month as and by way of maintenance for the minor son Raju. This judgment and order was delivered by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (15th Court), Ahmedabad ; on December 30, 1980. 2. The matter was carried in revision by opponent No. 2. He filed Criminal Revision Application No. 32 of 1981 in the Court of City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. The learned City Sessions Judge (Court No. 20), who heard the revision application, held that there was no legally valid marriage between the petitioner and opponent No. 2. The petitioner was not the legally married wife of opponent No. 2 and therefore, she could not claim any maintenance from the opponent No. 2. The learned City Sessions Judge also held that minor child Raju was also not entitled to claim maintenance whatsoever. This order was passed by the learned City Sessions Judge on May 8, 1981. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid judgment and order. 3. The learned City Sessions Judge also held that minor child Raju was also not entitled to claim maintenance whatsoever. This order was passed by the learned City Sessions Judge on May 8, 1981. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid judgment and order. 3. Counsel for opponent No. 2, i.e. Tejabhai, has produced on record a copy of the judgment delivered by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No. 1021 of 1981. That suit was filed by opponent No. 2 against the present petitioner. In that suit a decree has been passed as prayed for by the plaintiff (opponent No. 2 herein) declaring that the defendant i. e. Puniben, the petitioner herein was not the plaintiff's wife. The aforesaid judgment and decree has been passed on November 29, 1984. It may be noted that the learned City Sessions Judge also held on appreciation of evidence that the' petitioner was not the legally married wife of opponent No. 2 Tejabhai. It is further stated by the counsel for the opponent No. 2 that the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court has become final and the same has not been challenged by either party to the proceedings. In above view of the matter it has got to be held that the petitioner is not the legally married wife of the opponent No. 2 and hence the question regarding the grant of maintenance to the petitioner by opponent No. 2 does not survive. 4. However, the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directing to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month to minor child Raju could not and should not have been disturbed by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned City Sessions Judge has reversed this part of the order on the ground that the marriage between the petitioner and opponent No. 2 was not proved and that there was no evidence regarding the paternity except the evidence of the petitioner-Puniben. The learned City Sessions Judge has clearly erred in making the aforesaid observation and in coming to the conclusion with regard to the maintenance payable to the minor child Raju. As far as the cohabitation with opponent No. 2 is concerned, there is clear evidence of in the petitioner herself. This evidence is corroborated by the evidence of Anadaji, Exh. 4, aged about 70 years. As far as the cohabitation with opponent No. 2 is concerned, there is clear evidence of in the petitioner herself. This evidence is corroborated by the evidence of Anadaji, Exh. 4, aged about 70 years. He has stated in his evidence that the marriage of the petitioner with opponent No. 2 had taken place in his presence and in the presence of about 25 persons ; that after the marriage the petitioner was staying at the residence of opponent No. 2 and that she had given birth to a male child and his name was Rajp. This part of aforesaid evidence of witness Anadaji, Exh. 4 has been completely ignored by the learned City Sessions Judge. Part of evidence given by a witness can be believed and other party may be rejected. If the evidence given by this witness regarding marriage is not believed, there is no reason why the other part of the evidence be also rejected. Moreover, the aforesaid evidence is supported by the birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation which is produced at Exhibit 6. As per the birth certificate, it is clear that the name of the father of the child is Tejabhai Modabhai, i. e. Opponent No. 2 herein. In above view of the matter, the learned City Sessions Judge has committed a gross error in appreciating the evidence and has filed to take into consideration the oral evidence of two witnesses, namely, Anadaji, Exh. 4 and Budhraji, Exh. 5. 5. In above view of the matter, the revision application is partly allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Revision Application No. 32 of 1991, setting aside the order of maintenance passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 45 of 1980 in favour of minor Raju is quashed and set aside and that part of the order (granting maintenance to minor Raju) passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is restored. The judgment and order passed by the learned City Sessions Judge setting aside the order granting maintenance to the petitioner- Puniben passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, is confirmed. The revision application is allowed to the extent indicated here-in-above. Rule made absolute accordingly. Revision application partly allowed.