JUDGMENT This revision-application is directed against the order dated 8.12.1992 passed by Shri P.C. Jain, II1rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Panna in Criminal Revision, whereby he set aside the order of granting maintenance allowance to the applicants in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant No. 1 Mst. Kesharbai wife of the non-applicant moved an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the applicant before the Judicial Magistrate First Class for grant of maintenance allowance to her and to her son Basantlal applicant No. 2. The stand of the non-applicant was that this marriage was nullity as the non-applicant and applicant No. 1 were minor at the time of their marriage and his second stand was that the applicant No. 2 Basantlal was not born out of his wedlock with the applicant No. 1. The trial Magistrate on consideration of the evidence, however, granted maintenance allowance to the applicant No. 1 to Rs. 500/- and Rs. 100/- to applicant No. 2 per month, payable from the date of the order i.e. on 30th June, 1992. The non-applicant preferred revision before the Sessions Judge, Panna. Addl. Sessions Judge before whom the case came up for disposal passed the impugned order setting aside the grant of maintenance allowance to the applicants holding that the marriage of the applicant with the non-applicant was nullity and the applicant No. 2 was not born out of their wedlock. Shri R.K. Samaiya, learned counsel for the applicants, has contended that the impugned order was passed without application of mind. He further contended that the findings of the lower revisional Court that the applicant No. 2 was not born out of the wedlock of non-applicant with applicant No. 1, is perverse. Under section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act the marriage can be declared a nullity if it contravenes anyone of the condition specified in clause (i), (iv) and (v) of section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but none of the provisions of section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act is applicable in the instant case, as neither party had any spouse living at the time of marriage, the parties were not within the prohibited degrees of relationship nor they are sapindas of each other. The finding of the learned lower revisional Court that the applicant No. 2 was not born out of wedlock of the applicant No. 1 with the non-applicant is also perverse. Admittedly, the applicant No. 2 was born of the applicant No. 1 after her Gouna was performed. The non-applicant has not led any evidence that the applicant No. 1 was leading adulterous life. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result the petition is allowed.