GOPALASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THE complainant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the S. D. J. M. , Nowrangpur dated 24-8-1981, in I. C. C. No. 5 of 1978, acquitting the respondents of the charge under sections 498/109, I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE gift of the complainants case is the Podmabati, the daughter of respondent No. 2 Tikai Beherani, is his legally married wife and he had a son through her and after delivery, the respondents enticed her away to their house where she lived in illicit intimacy with respondent No. 1 and therefore they are liable under sections 498/109, I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE defence pleaded that the said Podmabati is not the legally married wife of the complainant and there was no illicit relationship between Podmabati and respondent No. 1. The said Podmabati had examined herself as D. W. 1 in support of the defence plea. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 is the mother of Podmabati and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are Podmas brothers and respondent No. 1 is alleged to be the second husband of Podmabati. ( 5 ) THE prosecution has examined in all P. Ws, to prove its case. P. W. 1 is the complainant. He baldly asserts that he married Podmabati about 9 years ago as per their caste custom. He does not state anything about the customary rites or ceremonies performed at the time of such marriage. Likewise, except merely stating that the complainant married Podma according to their caste custom. P. W. 3 also is silent about the formalities observed at the time of the marriage. P. W. 3 admits that he did not attend the marriage of the complainant. P. W. 4 is the maternal uncle of the complainant and, therefore, highly interested for the complainant. P. W. 5 states that there was Saptapadit and Homot at the time of the complainants marriage but the same was not corroborated even by P. W. 4, Thus, it is seen that even the performance of valid marriage between the complainant and Podmabati by due observance of the customary rites and ceremonies has not been satisfactorily proved by the complainant. ( 6 ) D. W. 1 Podmabati states on oath that she was not married to the complainant but the later had stealthily kept her for one year when she had given birth to a child, who died and subsequently the complainant had deserved her. The very nature of evidence of D. W. 1 is such that she appears to be a truthful witness. Her evidence that she did not marry the complainant was not shaken in cross-examination. ( 7 ) ON a careful consideration of the evidence on record, as discussed above, I hold, agreeing with the findings of the learned trial court, that Podmabati is not the legally married wife of the complainant. Hence, I find that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case against the respondents. In the result, I find on merit in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.