JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnaik, J. - This is an application challenging the order of the learned Magistrate passed u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month to the daughter on a finding that the daughter is the illegitimate daughter though the Magistrate found that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party had not been proved. After stating the facts and contentions, His Lordship held : There is no dispute that ordinarily this Court does not interfere with a finding of fact in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, but when the Court comes to the conclusion that there is no legal evidence to sustain a finding, then in such a case non-interference with a finding would cause miscarriage of justice and, therefore, this Court be entitled to interfere with a finding in such a case. The claim of the opposite party that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner has been disbelieved by the learned Magistrate specially in view of the FIR lodged by the father of the girl (Ext. A). Ext. A is an FIR lodged at the Salepur Police Station by the father of the girl on 12-4-1980 alleging that the petitioner had out-raged the modesty of the opposite party. If the allegation of the opposite party that she married the petitioner on 15-7-1979 is true, then her father could not have lodged the FIR on 12-4-1980 that the modesty of his daughter had been out-raged by the petitioner. This being the position, the learned Magistrate was justified in coming to the conclusion that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party had not been established. There is no evidence oh record to show that there was any illicit connection between the petitioner and the opposite party nor any of the relations of the opposite party have been examined to establish that the petitioner had access to the opposite party and that the child was born through him. In a some what similar case which came up before this Court in the case of Bakuli Sahu V. Khedri Dei, 1970 ILR Cutt. In a some what similar case which came up before this Court in the case of Bakuli Sahu V. Khedri Dei, 1970 ILR Cutt. 420, a learned Single judge of this Court came to the conclusion that when a woman comes forward with an allegation that a certain person is the father of her illegitimate child, it would be very unsafe to accept her testimony alone on the question of paternity without adequate corroboration. It has further been held that it is really difficult and at titles impossible to lead direct evidence on the actual fact of cohabitation. But at the same time, the woman who comes up with such an allegation being highly interested, there should be proper corroboration of her statement, may be, by cogent circumstantial evidence. It is for the mother to show that the child could only have been born to the alleged father under the circumstances of an exclusive relationship. The same decision was followed in another case in Bhaskar Sahu v. Janaki Stree 1974 CLR 509. Applying the tests laid down in the aforesaid two decisions to the facts of the present case, I am constrained to hold that the evidence on record is not at all adequate to sustain the finding of the learned Magistrate that the petitioner is the father of the alleged daughter. In that view of the matter, the said finding must be set aside. Necessarily, therefore, the order of the Magistrate granting maintenance to the daughter on a finding that she is the illegitimate daughter of the petitioner must also be set aside. 5. In the result, therefore, the impugned order of the Magistrate is set aside and this criminal revision is allowed. Final Result : Allowed