Judgment Siba Prashad Rajkhowa, J. 1. THIS is an application filed Under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for setting aside the Order dated 6th January 1990 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Calcutta in Case No. M/8/89 granting maintenance allowances Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. to the petitioner/wife at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month with effect from the date of the filing of the petition. 2. THIS is the story of an unfortunate married couple whose dreams of a happy conjugal life have been shattered soon after the marriage. Neither the husband nor the wife has filed any suit for obtaining a decree of divorce till now but the wife has sought maintenance allowances from her husband mainly on the grounds of physical assault and neglegence. Husband has denied all these allegations. However, the learned Magistrate was satisfied from the evidence on record that she had been subjected to physical and mental cruelty and that a situation was created by the husband in which it was no longer possible on the part of the wife to live with the husband and accordingly he granted the maintenance allowances. In a matrimonial proceeding we find very often sterio-typed allegations and counter-allegations. But the allegations in the instant case are of a different nature and at the same time more serious than the of trepeated allegations of extra marital relations. I find from the records the marriage between the parties was a negotiated one. Both the spouses are educated and the admitted position is that they got married on 29.12.87 at St. Teressa Church at Entally market, Calcutta, as per Christian Marriage rites. By virtue of their being Bengali Christians, some Bengali customs had also been performed at the marriage. These are, as deposed to by Mrs. Shila Rozaria (P.W. 4) putting on conch bangles, vermalion on the forehead of the bride and exchange of garlands. After the marriage the bride came to her hushand's house at 49, Sankaritala St. Calcutta and stayed there for 2 days. Then they shifted to a rented flat at No. 9, N.N. Mukherjee Street, Dum Dum. On 10.1.88 both of them went to Puri for honeymoon. According to the petitioner/wife they stayed there for a week and spent the time happily and returned to Dum Dum on 19.1.88. Calcutta and stayed there for 2 days. Then they shifted to a rented flat at No. 9, N.N. Mukherjee Street, Dum Dum. On 10.1.88 both of them went to Puri for honeymoon. According to the petitioner/wife they stayed there for a week and spent the time happily and returned to Dum Dum on 19.1.88. According to her, the marriage was consummated to the full satisfaction of both and as a result she had conceived but her case is that her husband and her mother-in-law did not like it and they forcibly administered her a homeopathic medicine prescribed by Dr. P.R. Sarkar which aborted the foetus in her womb. This brought a period of depression in her life. She wanted to perform the Christian religious ceremony of Novena which means the ceremony of 'Our Lady of Good Health' at her husband's residence at Dum Dum but her husband asked her to perform the same at her father's house. So she came to her father's house on 27.8.88. But before her departure, her husband warned her not. to come back again and if she would come back, a situation would be created which would compel her to leave the place and so out of fear she has not returned to her husband's house since 27.8.88 and stayed at her father's house. 3. THE revision-petitioner's case is that his marriage with the opposite party (i.e. the petitioner in the Court below) was solemnised on 29.12.87 according to Christian rites at St. Terassa Church and after the solemnisation of the marriage he came along with the O.P. to his parents' home at Sankharitolla and stayed there that day. Then they shifted to a flat at Dum Dum on 31.12.87. Few days after the marriage he went for a honeymoon with Monika at, Puri and stayed there for about 4 days and then returned to Dum Dum. According to him he could not enjoy the honeymoon and 'it was a total fiasco'. There he discovered that Monika's body was nothing but a skeleton and that he could not believe that there could be a woman having such a body. He could not enjoy sex with her and she lacked femininity. By such expression he wants to convey the idea that Monika's physique is nothing but a bundle of dry bones wherein some life exists miraculously. He could not enjoy sex with her and she lacked femininity. By such expression he wants to convey the idea that Monika's physique is nothing but a bundle of dry bones wherein some life exists miraculously. Some glimpse of his scornful utterences may be found in the evidence of P.W. 1 who is the mother of Monika and in the evidence of Monika herself (P.W. 2). P.W. 1 has stated that Isaac (husband of Monika) talked about Monika in public that there was nothing in the body of Monika and that her body was covered with big hairs. It was suggested to P.W. 2 in her cross-examination that she had no sign of breast and that her chest was full of hair like men. She has denied all these allegations. Thus we find that the revision-petitioner has painted the opposite party in such a manner that she is not at all a woman, in other words hers is a male figure. 4. THE learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner has submitted that the opposite party has left her husband's house of her own accord and, therefore, there is no question of negligence to maintain on the part of the revision petitioner. He has based this submission on the evidence of P.W. 1 who has stated that Monika came to her house on 27.8.88 for observing 'Novena' from 29.8.88 to 8.9.89. She did not return to her husband's house thereafter. But the answer to the question as to why Monika had not returned to her husband's house is found in Monika's evidence wherein she has stated that when she was about to leave for her mother's house on 27.8.81 on the eve of 'Novena' her husband held out a threat to the effect that if she would return to his house then he would create such a situation that she would be compelled to leave his house and so she has further deposed that she had reasonable apprehensions in her mind that she may not stay alive at her husband's house if she returns there. These statements remain not challenged. It is a case of maintenance Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and not a case of divorce. But the revision-petitioner has deposed in such a manner as if it were a case of divorce. He says in his depositions that his marital relation with Monika remains now only as his caremonial wife. These statements remain not challenged. It is a case of maintenance Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and not a case of divorce. But the revision-petitioner has deposed in such a manner as if it were a case of divorce. He says in his depositions that his marital relation with Monika remains now only as his caremonial wife. He goes on to say that he lived with Monika as husband and wife minus conjugal life and that there was no free and fair marriage between him and Monika. He has explained what he means by "free and fair marriage". It is that Monika was not given to him as a wife as she lacked certain faminine qualities. To a query put by the trial Court he has stated that Monika was disabled for being a wife and according to his personal opinion the marriage was not free and fair as she failed to respond to his conjugal demands. Like a Hindu marriage, a Christian marriage is also a secrament. If there be any diriment impediment it will render a person incapable of validly contracting a marriage and, therefore, before the celebration of a marriage they are bound to reveal to the parish priest or the local Ordinary such impediments as they may know about. In the case in hand a valid Christian marriage has been solemnised. Both the spouses had the occasion of knowing each other before the marriage and there is admission from the side of the husband that before the celebration of the marriage they had been to the church on 3 occasions. Monika has forcefully asserted that she had conceived due to co-habitation with Issac. In her cross-examination she has stated that she informed her husband in the last part of April 1988 about the fact that she had conceived and that the baby in her womb was two months old when she suffered the abortion. Dr. P.R. Sarkar was not examined as a witness on the side of Monika to prove that he gave some medicine which aborted the foetus in the womb of Monika. As such it is difficult to come to a definite conclusion as to whether such an abortion really took place. There is of course, admission on the part of the Monika that she was under the treatment of a doctor and that her husband also had horne some medical expenses. As such it is difficult to come to a definite conclusion as to whether such an abortion really took place. There is of course, admission on the part of the Monika that she was under the treatment of a doctor and that her husband also had horne some medical expenses. However, she has stated in her cross-examination that she has no objection to be examined by a medical expert. As such the ball is now in Isaac's Court. Inspite of all the evidence on record, the Court is in the dark as to the real state of affairs that stands like the Berlin Wall between the newly married couple. Even the Berlin's wall is now broken. If the allegation of the husband regarding Monika's lacking famininity is true then surely there is a way out as Monika herself is prepared to undergo medical examination under an expert physician. If there be any cosmetic unpleasantness, modern medical science is so advanced that such an unpleasantness may be set right by use of proper medicine or by plastic surgery or by any other method known to modern medical science. Then a day will come when this unhappy couple may find the true meaning of conjugal life. Having overcome their traumatic experiences, they may emerge as a couple rejuvenated. They must not forget that the marriage according to their faith is a secrament. 5. THERE is incontrovertible proof that without any just cause the husband, having sufficient means, has neglected and refused to maintain his wife. 6. THE result is that the revisional application fails and the same stands rejected.