Judgment : This revision is against the order of acquittal of the first respondent/accused by the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthani, in C.C.No. 33 of 1989 dated 13. 1991, holding that the prosecution has not made out a case for the offence under Sec. 417, I.P.C. The revision petitioner who was examined as P.W.1 was the complainant before the Magistrate. She alleged that the first respondent/accused brought her to Thiruthani promising to marry her and in a Pillaiyar Temple in the Thiruthani hill, they got married and thali also was tied to her by the accused. Thereafter they were staying in Lodges for four days enjoing the sexual pleasure. It is the allegation of the Revision Petitioner that on 30.12.1988 the first respondent/ accused left her in Thiruthani and returned after several hours. Then, he took her promising for a photo in photostudio, left her therestating that he would come back with money after few minutes that the revision petitioner realising that she was deceived by the first respondent/accused had lodged a complaint on 11. 1989 with police. The prosecution examined nine witnesses of whom P.W.1 is the complainant, P.W.2 her mother, P.W.3 her brother and P.W.4 her close relative. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthani having found that no offence has been made out, acquitted the first respondent/accused, under Sec. 258, Crl.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for revision petitioner contended that in this case the learned Magistrate had not given an opportunity to the prosecution to exhaust all the witnesses cited in the charge sheet and even before the examination by the Investigation Officer the case has been disposed of therefore the case has to be remitted back for fresh trial. The learned counsel further contended that the victim who was examined as P.W.1 has spoken that she was given false promise by the accused for her marriage with him and also to maintain her throughout as his wife, but after the marriage on 212. The learned counsel further contended that the victim who was examined as P.W.1 has spoken that she was given false promise by the accused for her marriage with him and also to maintain her throughout as his wife, but after the marriage on 212. 1988 the first respondent/accused had sexual intercourse with P.W.1 for four days when they were staying in the Lodges and as he has quenched his lust, he abandoned her and this conduct shows that the first respondent/accused had no genuine intention of marrying her, but it was only a pretention for taking her to Thiruthani under the guise of marriage for satisfying his lust and therefore this is a case in which the offence under Sec.417 has been established. 3. On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 it is the prosecution case that the marriage has been performed between P.W.1 and the accused in a Pillaiyar Temple in Thiurthani. Even assuming that the accused had promised to marry her, his promise has been fulfilled by his action of tying Thali around her neck in a temple and this has been spoken by P.W.2 the mother of P. W. 1 her brother P.W.3 and another close relative P.W.4. All these witnesses have spoken about the marriage between the P.W.1 and the accused in a temple. If the prosecution evidence is relied upon, it has to be accepted that there was marriage between the accused and P.W.1. So the promise made by the accused has been kept up by him by marrying her. Thereafter, the evidence discloses that they were staying together in different lodges sharing the bed till the alleged abandonment of P.W.1 on 30.12.1988. Even assuming that the accused had sexual intercourse with P.W.1 and thereafter abandoned her there cannot be an offence under Sec.417, I.P.C., because he, being the husband was entitled to have matrimonial relationship like sharing the bed with P.W.1. It will not amount to any offence, when especially P.W.1 also admit that she shared the bed with the accused, as she became the wife of the accused. 4. It will not amount to any offence, when especially P.W.1 also admit that she shared the bed with the accused, as she became the wife of the accused. 4. For the reason that the accused had abandoned P.W.1 four days after the alleged marriage, at the most the remedy for P.W.1 would be to proceed against the accused under the matrimonial laws for maintenance or for damages for breach of agreement under the common law, if the accused did not keep his promise of maintaining her. But I find that there is no evidence for making out the offence under Sec. 417, I.P.C. because even according to P.W.1 the promise of marriage was kept by the accused, though he had not maintained her after four days. There is nothing to indicate that the accused had the intention of cheating P.W.1 even at the time of the alleged marriage on 212. 1988 when the prosecution rests upon the evidence of P.W.1 and if the evidence of P.W.1 is not establishing the offence for which the accused has been charged, the examination of the Investigating Officer will not improve the prosecution case in any manner. Therefore, the court below has rightly exercised the jurisdiction under Sec. 258, Crl.P.C. in acquitting the accused and I and no merits to interfere in the order of the lower court. Therefore, the Revision is not sustainable and deserves to be dismissed. 5. In the result the revision is dismissed.