JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rairakhol granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to the opposite party from the date of application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short. 2. The opposite party, Kumari Rajamani Deo and her mother, Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi filed a petition u/s 125 of the Code claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- for the former and Rs. 1000/- for the latter per month from the date of filing the application. According to their case, Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi, daughter of the ex-ruler of Vasna in the State of Gujuat was married to the Petitioner, one of the sons of the ex-ruler of Rairakhol, in the year 1953 according to the religious customs prevalent in Raj families. They lived happily and out of the wedlock the opposite party was born on 13-7-1963. Sometime thereafter, the Petitioner took to a life of adultery, committed many acts of cruelty towards his wife and daughter and even made attempts to have them killed. He grabbed the cash and jewellery of his wife and did not maintain them. They were removed from Rairakhol palace and were made to live in 80 farm house in a village called 'Pandakimal'. Later they were even ousted from the farm house. It was stated that the opposite party and her mother, both belonging to former Raj families, were reduced to destitution and were practically living on doles and charities extended to them by persons who were their former subjects. 3. The Petitioner admitted that he had legally married Smt. Kanaka Devi, but denied that the opposite party was born to him. According to his case, from 1953 upto 1959 both, of them led a conjugal life. But thereafter she lived an unchaste life developing illicit sexual relationship with a driver called Mangal Singh, so much so, that she had eloped with the said driver. So after 1959 the Petitioner out off conjugal relationship with his wife and ceased to visit her. He gifted away about 30 acres of paddy land in her favour in village Pandakimal made arrangements that she should stay in the farm house of that village. So after 1959 the Petitioner out off conjugal relationship with his wife and ceased to visit her. He gifted away about 30 acres of paddy land in her favour in village Pandakimal made arrangements that she should stay in the farm house of that village. While living in the farm house at Pandakimal, his wife developed illicit relationship with one Sanu Kuda and out of that relationship a son was born who, however, died shortly after birth. In such circumstances, the Petitioner was not liable to give maintenance either to the opposite party who is not his daughter or to his unchaste wife. 4. The learned trial court formulated the following three points for determination: (1) Whether Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi was the legally married wife of the Petitioner. (2) Whether the opposite party is the daughter of the Petitioner or an illegitimate child, and (3) Whether Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi and the opposite party are entitled to maintenance and, if so the quantum thereof. So far as the first point was concerned, he found that the Petitioner and Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi were admittedly legally married, but in T.S. No. 31 of 1974 of the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sambalpur a decree was passed in favour of the Petitioner and ex parte against Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi, whereby, the marriage between them was dissolved and a decree of divorce was passed on 12-5-1980 (Ext. M). Thereafter, there was no relationship of husband and wife between the Petitioner and Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi. So far as the second point was concerned, he found that the Petitioner had acess to his wife in the years 1962 and 1963 and so the opposite party was born out of the wedlock. Accordingly, she is the legitimate daughter of the Petitioner. With regard to the third point he found that Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi was not entitled to maintenance because, the marriage did not subsist after 12-5-1980, but the opposite party being the daughter of the Petitioner was entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of filing of the application for Maintenance. 5. Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi did not come up in revision against the order passed by learned court below refusing maintenance to her. Therefore so far as she is concerned, the impugned order has become final. 500/- per month from the date of filing of the application for Maintenance. 5. Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi did not come up in revision against the order passed by learned court below refusing maintenance to her. Therefore so far as she is concerned, the impugned order has become final. The only point that falls for consideration is whether the opposite party was the daughter born out of the wedlock of the Petitioner and Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi or she was an illegitimate child. The evidence of P.W. 1, Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi shows that the opposite party was born to her through her husband, the Petitioner. The best witness with regard to the paternity of a child is the mother who gives birth to it. The personal relationship between the Petitioner and Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi had not become strained in 1962 and 1963. During those years the marriage had subsisted. The opposite party was born to her during subsistence of a valid marriage. From the evidence of O.P.W. 1 Dr. Kailash Chandra Tripathy, it appears that be had examined Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi on 9-4-1963 and found that she was pregnant for six months. According to the evidence of the Petitioner, (O.P.W. 5) he took Smt. Kanaka. Kumari Devi for medical examination to Sambalpur and got her examined by the Civil Surgeon who was obviously. O.P.W. 1. If the relationship between the husband and wife was not cordial at that time the Petitioner would not have taken the pain of taking his wife for medical examination to Sambalpur. On the other hand because the couple had been childless so far, it was not unlikely that the Petitioner due to fondness and for proper medical care of his pregnant wife took her to the Civil Surgeon of Sambalpur for examination and advice. Obviously, the couple drifted apart after the birth of the opposite party and so both of them executed an agreement (Ext. 34) in the presence of p. w. 4 who had scribed the document. In this said document besides, agreeing that they shall have apart, they had stated that on 13-7-1963 a daughter was born to them. The daughter was obviously the opposite party. It is impossible to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 4, a practising lawyer of Sambalpur, as well as, the agreement (Ext. In this said document besides, agreeing that they shall have apart, they had stated that on 13-7-1963 a daughter was born to them. The daughter was obviously the opposite party. It is impossible to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 4, a practising lawyer of Sambalpur, as well as, the agreement (Ext. 34) containing the signatures of the Petitioner and Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi with a clear recital that the opposite party was born to them. There are a large number of documents most of which do not seem relevant to the issue under discussion. But a number of letters addressed to Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi by some other members of the Rairakhol Raj family and closely related to the Petitioner were admitted into the evidence. In many of these letters, fond reference was made to the opposite party as Jema meaning a princess. Manifestly the members of Rairakhol Raj family who still had cordial relationship with Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi and the opposite party accepted that the latter was the legitimate child born out of the wedlock of the Petitioner and Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi. The evidence both oral and documentary is thus over whelming and it is clearly established that the opposite party was born during subsistence of the marriage of the Petitioner and Smt. Kanaka Kumari Devi and as such she was not an illegitimate child. 6. The learned court below on consideration of the assets and income of the Petitioner, as well as, the status of the parties fixed the quantum of maintenance for the opposite party at Rs. 500/- per month payable from the date of the application u/s 125 of the Code namely 8-4-1974. I do not find adequate reasons to differ from his conclusion. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out that the opposite party in the mean while attained majority and was married to Sri Santosh Kumar Singh of Dhenkanal on 10-7-1981. According to him, after her marriage she is not entitled maintenance from her father, because, as the legally married wife of Sri Santosh Kumar Singh who is serving in Indian Air Force she is to be maintained by her husband. The opposite party was born on 13-7-1963 and was married on 10-7-1981. She is the married major daughter of the Petitioner. The opposite party was born on 13-7-1963 and was married on 10-7-1981. She is the married major daughter of the Petitioner. According to the provision of Section 125 of the Code after marriage she is not entitled to be maintained by her father. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel, the opposite, party shall be entitled to get maintenance from the Petitioner at the rate of Rs. 500/- from 8-4-1974 up to 9-7-1981. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner prayed for a remand so that the parties would arrive at some honorable settlement. Whether the case is remanded or not, there is no bar for the parties to arrive at a settlement, particularly, in view of their status in the society and the fact that the opposite party condemned by her own father as an illegitimate child has been married to an Air Force Officer and has been fairly settled in life. Reconciliation is always possible and this is a fit case for reconciliation for which there is no time limit. I however find no cause or compelling reasons to remand the case after setting aside the impugned order. An order of remand is fraught with complications, because, of the past relationship amongst the parties and specially after the marriage of the opposite party. Otherwise also, according to law a remand is unwarranted. Before parting the case, I would like to point out that Judicial Officers while writing judgments should not be swayed away by emotions and should scrupulously avoid making unnecessary and avoidable comments unwarranted by evidence against lawyers and others who are not parties. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rairakhol while writing the impugned judgment was unable to control his emotion and became eloquent by giving free play to his imagination which is evident from the following extracts: The daughter is in her teens, she had come along with her mother the day the case was taken up for argument. Both mother and daughter stood side by side, the mother benumbed and the daughter sparkling like an unsheathed boy-net white and cold. The opposite party stood opposite to the Petitioner. He cast his look on his wife who stood dull and motionless as if concealed by a cold thought. Flapping his thick lips, the arguing lawyer of the opposite party placed his fact and the points. His voice was resonant and his look sober. The opposite party stood opposite to the Petitioner. He cast his look on his wife who stood dull and motionless as if concealed by a cold thought. Flapping his thick lips, the arguing lawyer of the opposite party placed his fact and the points. His voice was resonant and his look sober. He spoke about for an hour pinpointing his words on what he needed precisely, His performance was very impressive. Then stood the learned advocate of the Petitioner swelling like a snake and waving his hands as a large black bird flapping the wings. Swinging back and forth like the tongue of a bell he placed and his coarse, trempling voice coursed through the air. His words flowed on like copper coins from a full purse but most of the words were nil-hil-ad-rem and useless. His argument had more sound and less sense but he sped on some times coughing, sometimes blinking and sometimes closing his eyes. After he finished, he took his seat rubbing both the hands and smiled at his friend, as if satisfied. To witness the mirth in the court there was an unusual crowd among whom was an old man with hair standing as spines of a hed-gehog. Soon he took his seat he yawned with a gusto an stubbornly fixed his look on the young girl. The youthful face, it seemed, created in the old man the painful excitement or an enfeebled beast, which sees a fresh prey, but unable to seize it, howls dismally at its helplessness. To his side was a young lawyer who unmindful to what the lawyers argued, was squinting his eyes in an effort to see the worn end's or his mustache, which he constantly twirled. The crowed included a young villian. His face and dress although were repulsive hut he seemed to derive the maximum warmth or out of the court. The arguing lawyers fought for a couple of hours like two sparrows for a common nest and after their blows and counter blows ended, the crowd dispersed leaving the court to as it is. The comments were wholly unnecessary, irrelvent and should not have been introduced into the judgment. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order hi upheld and the revision is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed