JUDGMENT P K. Palli, J.—It is the plaintiff who has filed the present second appeal. The suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 is not his legally wedded wife and the defendant No. 2 is not his son, was decreed by the learned trial Court which decree stands set aside by the learned first appellate Court on appeal filed by the defendants. Parties hereinafter in this judgment shall be referred to as the plaintiff" and the defendants". 2 The learned trial Court on appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties found that the defendant No.1 is not the legally wedded wife nor the defendant No.2 is the legitimate or illegitimate son of the plaintiff- On analysis, it was found that the plaintiff never married to defendant No.1 and the rituals and ceremonies that are required to be performed in accordance with the status of the family of the plaintiff were not performed according to the “Dharam Shastra" and thus the defendant No.1 is not proved to be his wife One birth entry in respect of the defendant No.2 Ex PW-4/A was discarded on the ground that the name of the father was inserted latter after some cuttings and that proper procedure was not followed, I was said that the name that existed earlier before the recording of the name of the plaintiff was Budh Ram, 3. Learned appellate Court on re-appraisal of the evidence and after weighing the rival contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties came to hold that the learned trial Court had fallen into factual error while deciding the entry which in the present case was placed on record as Ex. DA to show the birth of the defendant No.2 as oo October 10, 1983. The said entry admittedly came from the office of the Registrar of deaths and births, Kullu and it shows the defendant No.2 to be the son of the plaintiff. Originally, by mistake the Dame of the father of defendant No.1 Budh Ram came to be recorded and immediately after coming to know, the same was got corrected by filing an affidavit. Originally, by mistake the Dame of the father of defendant No.1 Budh Ram came to be recorded and immediately after coming to know, the same was got corrected by filing an affidavit. The learned first appellate Court also came to hold that the marriage was solemnized in a temple by performing "Ganesh Pooja" and her statement is duly supported by priest who performed the wedding after performing "Mantras" The findings which were arrived at by the learned trial Court were ordered to be set aside and it was also observed that the suit appears to have been filed by the plaintiff to wringle out the liability of maintenance. On the ultimate analysis, it was found that the plaintiff is not entitled for grant of any relief of declaration or injunction and consequently the appeal was allowed resulting in the dismissal of the suit. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff Mr. Sood contends that the paternity of the child has not been established and the birth entry cannot be relied upon as the same is not only suspicious but also has been made in the manner so as to create a doubt It is further argued that the learned Court should have arrived at its own independent conclusion and that too on the appreciation of the material Rather the sole basis in the judgment is the order passed by the learned Magistrate in the proceedings which were taken out under section 125, Cr.P.C, by the wife claiming maintenance from the plaintiff. In those proceedings, maintenance was allowed to the defendants as wife and son of the plaintiff. 5. The argument proceeds on the basis that these are summary inquiries and could not be made the basis for deciding a dispute in respect of the validity of the marriage before the Civil Court Learned Counsel has also cited case law to further support his arguments. 6 Mr. R.L. Sood, learned Counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents has in reply adopted the same line of reasoning which stands projected by the learned first appellate Court in the impugned judgment. 7. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties of length and on examination of the impugned judgment and the record, I find that there is no merit in this appeal. 7. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties of length and on examination of the impugned judgment and the record, I find that there is no merit in this appeal. 8 There is no doubt that the proceeding held under section 125, Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be binding on the Civil Court and it would be another thing to say that the same cannot be taken notice of while determining the validity of the marriage when the same is in dispute before a Civil Court. In the present case besides taking into consideration the order of the learned Magistrate which was affirmed by this Court, the learned first appellate Court has fully appraised the evidence led by the parties in the present case and it has been found, as a matter of fact, that the defendant No.1 is the wife of the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 is the son of the plaintiff. 9. I am not prepared to accept the argument raised by the learned Counsel that no reliance can be placed on the birth entry of the defendant No.2 which is Ex. DA Undisputedly, Budd Ram is the name of the father of the defendant No.1 and it was his name that appeared in the birth register by mistake. Immediately, when the mistake came to the notice of the defendant No.1, she immediately filed an affidavit seeking correction of the entry and the same was consequently ordered to be corrected and the name of the plaintiff was shown there as father of the defendant No.1. It has also come on record that the plaintiff after marrying the defendant No.1 in the temple kept her at his house and then at another residence was taken for her and thereafter the plaintiff married another woman namely Smt. Sarita. The marriage has been proved to have been performed in the temple of "Bhekheli Mata" situated in Kullu in November 12, 1982. It has also been found, as a matter of fact, that the parties lived and cohabited together as husband and wife till the birth of the defendant No.2 i.e. son. 10. The plaintiff has also disputed the factum of marriage and had laid challenge to its validity in the proceedings taken out by the wife before the learned Magistrate under section 125, Cr.P.C. 11. 10. The plaintiff has also disputed the factum of marriage and had laid challenge to its validity in the proceedings taken out by the wife before the learned Magistrate under section 125, Cr.P.C. 11. Both the parties feeling aggrieved against the order preferred separate revisions petitions to this Court which have been disposed of by a common judgment dated 12-7-1990 The stage is now set to reproduce the observations made in the judgment of this Court :— “The evidence has been scrutinized pains-takingly and the findings arrived at are strictly in accordance with the evidence available on the record of this case. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and looking to the evidence on the record of this case, I am of the opinion that the marriage between the parties stands proved. Puran Chand (PW 4) performed the marriage ceremony between the parties in the temple of Goddess BHEKHLI MATA at Bhekhli on 12-11-1982. The parties garlanded each other in the presence of the deity and Puran Chand (PW 4) also chanted some MANTRAS required for the purpose. After marrying in the temple, she (Bimla Devi) was taken to his house by the petitioner (husband), where they remained for sometime till she was forced to lived in the hired house as stated by her. The version given by Smt. Bimla Devi and her witnesses cannot be disbelieved. As a matter of fact, the petitioner (husband) wants to run away from the marriage wed-lock. He even alleges that he married Sarita Devi, but the date of his marriage with her is subsequent to the date he married Smt. Bimla Devi." 12. In this very judgment, the fact as to whether Deepak-Kumar-defendant No.2 is the son of the plaintiff or not, was also examined and while analysing the birth register, it has been observed that there was no substance in the kind of the submission for the reason that a mistake had occurred in recording the name of the father i.e. Bal Krishan and instead of this name, the name of the father of Smt, Bimla Devi was recorded. It has been observed that this mistake was rightly got corrected at a latter stage. It was in this situation that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was upheld and the revision petition was ordered to be dismissed 13. It has been observed that this mistake was rightly got corrected at a latter stage. It was in this situation that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was upheld and the revision petition was ordered to be dismissed 13. The argument raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff simply cannot be appreciated that these observations should carry no effect while deciding the present controversy between the parties which has to be determined independently. 14. It is to be seen that in the proceedings under section 125, Cr.P.C. a full-fledged trial took place. In the event of the marriage being disputed in those proceedings the question has to be decided on appraisal of the evidence which is made available to the Court by the parties contesting the matter, 15. The matter can also be viewed from another angle. In the set-up of the society particularly in a backward State like Himachal Pradesh, no woman would go to the Court with a child claiming maintenance on the ground that the person against whom the relief is being claimed is her husband and is father of a child. It appears that the plaintiff performed marriage with the defendant No.1 lived with her for sometime and then changed his mind and performed another marriage with Smt. Sarita. He cannot be permitted to have the both ways. If the husband in the given situation desires to have the luxury of two wives, he has to maintain them also. 16. So far as the impugned judgment is concerned, the same is based on proper appreciation of the evidence and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court stand rightly set aside. No interference is called for. The appeal is consequently ordered to be dismissed with costs throughout. The counsel fee is fixed at Rs 2,000 only. Appeal dismissed. -