This is an application under section 401 read with section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short, 'the Code' filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, North Lakhimpur in Misc. Case No. 84/84. The learned trial court allowed the petition of the opposite party filed under section 125 of the Code allowing her maintenance for the child, but did not allow any maintenance for herself. 2. The opposite party filed the petition alleging, inter alia, that she was married to the petitioner; they lived together as husband and wife for four months and that as a result of co-habi­tation a child was born. The petition was opposed by the pre­sent petitioner who denied the allegations. He also denied cate­gorically that there was any co-habitation between the parties. 3. Before this court Shri J. M. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that on the un-corroborated testimony of the opposite party the trial court came to the finding that the petitioner was the father of the child and as such it is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention the learned Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Bhiskaran vs. Kunhlpennu, 1960 Cr.LJ 353. In that case High Court held that 'Magistrate ought not to pass order for main­tenance on un-corroborated testimony of mother of child to prove paternity'. With respect I agree with the above views that in cases where the paternity of a child of an unmarried woman is denied, it is unsafe to act on the un-corroborated testi­mony of the woman. 1 am further of the view that in case of married woman such corroboration is absolutely necessary. 4. In the instant case the learned trial court did not be­lieve that there was a valid marriage, but came to the finding that the child was born as a result of co-habitation of the parties. 5. Admittedly the opposite party was married to one Naresh out of which two issues were born. It is also admitted by the petitioner that there was no divorce in respect of the said marriage. It is also on evidence that there was a scandal between the opposite party and one Jatin Muluck. In view of these facts the Court has to be very careful in coming to a finding regar­ding the parentage of the child. 6. It is also admitted by the petitioner that there was no divorce in respect of the said marriage. It is also on evidence that there was a scandal between the opposite party and one Jatin Muluck. In view of these facts the Court has to be very careful in coming to a finding regar­ding the parentage of the child. 6. To prove her case the opposite party has examined her­self and one witness. The opposite party deposed before the trial court to the effect that her marriage with the petitioner was according to social custom. But this fact has not been supported by her own witness Monosa Mullik (P.W.2). Accor­ding to Monosa (P.W.2) the marriage between the parties was solemnised by a Brahmin before the sacred fire. It is interes­ting to note that opposite party filed a petition under section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned District Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur for dissolution of the marriage and the certified copy of the said petition has been exhibited as Ext. 'Ka'. The learned trial court did not examine this material piece of evidence. In the said petition the opposite party categorically stated that she was not allowed to enter the resi­dence of the present petitioner after marriage and that there was no co-habitation between the parties. There is no material on record to show that thereafter there was co-habitation between the parties. That apart, in the instant case the date of birth of the child has also not been proved There are also discre­pancies in the evidence adduced by the present opposite parties regarding the place of stay after the marriage between the par­ties. The most important witness to prove paternity would have been the father of the opposite party, but he has not been examined. The present petitioner has examined one Nishi Kanta Dutta who is the President of the village Defence party to show that the opposite party is a woman of doubtful character. 7. The learned trial court did not consider the material evidence and also did not give any conclusive finding about the parentage of the child. The present petitioner has examined one Nishi Kanta Dutta who is the President of the village Defence party to show that the opposite party is a woman of doubtful character. 7. The learned trial court did not consider the material evidence and also did not give any conclusive finding about the parentage of the child. However, lam of the opinion that the opposite party has failed to prove that the petitioner was the father of the child as there was no reliable corroboration of the statement of the opposite party who is a married woman and as such I hold that the petitioner is not liable to pay any allowance for the maintenance of the child. 8. In the result, the present petition is allowed and the order of the learned Magistrate dated 24.8.85 passed in Misc. Case No. 84/84 is set aside.