R. P. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against order dated 13-3-1992 of Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Raipur, passed in Cr. Rev. No. 241/88 whereby the learned A. S. J. accepted the revision filed by the husband (now respondent) against the order dated 4-7-1988 of J. M. F. C. , Gariyaband in Cr. Case No. 148/85. The Magistrate had allowed the application of the wife (now petitioner) u/s. 125, Cr. P. C. against the husband granting maintenance @ Rs. 150/- p. m. to her. The maintenance was allowed from the date of application i. e. 31-10-1985. ( 2 ) THE petitioner claimed to be the married wife of the respondent. The marriage was performed according to the custom of 'churi wearing' prevalent in the Gond tribe about 12 years back and two sons were born to the parties. She lived with the husband for 5 years and then he turned her out of the matrimonial house and did not maintain her. He was also ill-treating her. He is possessed of 30 acres of agricultural land earning Rs. 50000/- per year. Hence she claimed maintenance @ Rs. 500/- p. m. for self and Rs. 250/- p. m. each for the sons. ( 3 ) IT was ultimately found that the sons are residing with the father who is maintaining them, so no maintenance was allowed for them. The Magistrate allowed Rs. 150/- p. m. for the wife holding that there was customary marriage between them as the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 did not apply to them as per provi-sions of Sec. 2 (ii) thereof. They have bee declared as Aboriginal Tribe under the provisions of Arts. 366 (25) and 342 of the Constitution of India. The Gonds have been so declared as Aboriginal Tribe vide Notification No. 3000-905-I-7-N-1, dated 25-11-1960, published on 2-12-1960. ( 4 ) THE revisional Court held that the petitioner was not the legally wedded wife of the respondent and hence dismissed the claim petition. The Sessions Court observed that Kumaribai had married in village Bedamuda before starting living with respondent. Her witness Kartikram had stated so and he had not alleged that she has been divorced by her earlier husband. The Court observed that there can be no marriage performed by a lady when her husband was alive. The Sessions Court observed that Kumaribai had married in village Bedamuda before starting living with respondent. Her witness Kartikram had stated so and he had not alleged that she has been divorced by her earlier husband. The Court observed that there can be no marriage performed by a lady when her husband was alive. Her marriage was subsisted, so she could best be a keep of Anandram and was not entitled to maintenance. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner had argued that the appreciation of evidence by the Magistrate was proper whereas the Sessions Court had wrongly selected certain portions of witnesses out of context and totally ignored the admission of the respondent and his witnesses. ( 6 ) IN view of the conflicting finding of fact by the trial Magistrate and the first revisional Court, it appears clear that this Court should go into the certain aspects of the statements of the wit-nesses to assess what are their versions regard-ing marriage between the petitioner and respondent. It is not in dispute that provisions of Hindu Marriage Act do not apply to these parties. These are people of Aboriginal Tribe of Gonds, so they are governed by the local customs with regard to marriages. Among them it is now well accepted that ceremony of marriage need not be performed as formally as in Shastrik Hindu Law. They have their customary forms of marriages. At least in second marriages which are common among them, they follow the custom of offering Churi to the bride by bridegroom. There is also accepted custom of leaving the wife and this results in divorce when there is an express agreement to divorce. ( 7 ) IT is also to be noticed that in a petition u/s. 125, Cr. P. C. the extent of proof to establish marriage is not of the same standard as in a complaint of bigamy for offence u/s. 494, I. P. C. In fact among Gonds second marriage is also common. These have become accepted customs over the years among this tribe in this part of India. ( 8 ) IT may be noticed that in the petition the petitioner had asserted that she was wife of the respondent and had two sons from him. In reply he denied that she was wife. These have become accepted customs over the years among this tribe in this part of India. ( 8 ) IT may be noticed that in the petition the petitioner had asserted that she was wife of the respondent and had two sons from him. In reply he denied that she was wife. He pleaded that due to certain bad deeds of this petitioner the relationship between them came to an end on 28-1-1986 in the presence of people of society and that the petitioner went away to live with one Gendram. He asserted that two sons were residing with him and were being maintained by him. It was not at all disputed that these two sons were born to him from the petitioner. In this reply the husband did not assert that there was no marriage between him and the petitioner. He asserted that relationship came to an end on 28-1-1986 in the presence of the people of society. So the denial of relationship of husband and wife appears to be wrong. It was asserted that the petitioner was being maintained by Gendram and she was living with him as his wife. Anandram narrates that in fact he was married to Manglibai for last 12 years before (sic) and is still living with her and he has children from her. He had asserted that Kumaribai had been living with him as his keep (Rakhel) for 5 years and he had two sons from her. But Kumaribai was caught in illicit relationship with Gendram in the month of 'kunwar' last year, meaning in October, 1985. Gendram took her to his house before the Panchayat people. The Panchayat people prepared a writing about it on 28-1-1986 and that writing is Ex. D-1, signed by people of Samaj, Raja, Dewan and the Panchas. Gendram took away Kumaribai and the sons were left with the respondent. He denied that he married Kumaribai by offering Churi to her. He admitted that after receiving summons of this case he had approached the Samaj people to ask them what was the relationship between him and Kumaribai. The Samaj people gave him writing Ex. D-1 on 28-1-1986. He explained that in their tribe it was a custom that if a married lady was kept by another person as his wife, then the second hus-band has to pay some compensation to the first husband. The Samaj people gave him writing Ex. D-1 on 28-1-1986. He explained that in their tribe it was a custom that if a married lady was kept by another person as his wife, then the second hus-band has to pay some compensation to the first husband. It is worth notice that in the reply there is no mention of writing Ex. D-1 dt. 28-1-1986. ( 9 ) R. W. 2 Khorbehara claimed that the village people had caught Gendram in the hut of Kumaribai. Kumaribai was living separately for 2-3 months. He asserted that Kumaribai had lived in the house of respondent as his wife (Aurat Ke Roop Mein Rahati Thi ). Earlier Kumaribai was caught with one Ramu but even thereafter she was taken by Anandram. He explained that among Gonds there was a custom of marriage by offering Churies and the woman married under Churi custom was called Rakhel. He had not seen the petitioner with Ramu but he had heard about it. ( 10 ) R. W. 3 Gambhirsingh Dhruv claims to be the Diwan of Dhruv Gond Samaj and he signed Ex. D-1 as one of the Panchas. He narrates that if a person keeps another woman while his married wife is present, the second woman is called Rakhel. He said that in meeting where Ex. D-1 was recorded, Kumaribai was not called but Gendram was called. Gendram went away after admitting the fact and he did not sign the paper. In cross-examination this witness had admitted that Kumaribai was wife of Anandram. This witness admitted that in his presence Kumaribai was not handed over to Gendram. 10. 1 Kumaribai appearing as her own witness, as P. W. 1, stated that she was married to Anandram 12 years back under custom of Churi and she was living with him as his wife and had 2 sons from him. Then Anandram took another wife about 7 years back and so the dispute started. She was turned out by Anandram. She denied having gone to the house of Gendram. She admitted that she had been first married to one Bhawanisingh about 15 years back. She stated that she did not know any Gendram. She denied that Panchayat people had given her to Gendram. She was turned out by Anandram. She denied having gone to the house of Gendram. She admitted that she had been first married to one Bhawanisingh about 15 years back. She stated that she did not know any Gendram. She denied that Panchayat people had given her to Gendram. She did not know if there was any earlier married wife of Anandram but she herself was only married by Churi custom and not by regular marriage. ( 11 ) P. W. 2 Hazari said that the claimant was married to Anandram by Churi custom. The first marriage takes place by Bhanwar (moving around the sacred fire) but the second marriage takes place by Churi custom. He admitted that Manglibai the first wife of the respondent was still alive and there was no divorce. He denied that Gendram and Kumaribai were caught together. ( 12 ) P. W. 3 Kartikram is the sister's husband of Kumaribai. He says that Anandram had taken Kumaribai from his house after offering Churies to her about 12 years back and about 5 years back he turned her out. He earlier had turned out his married wife but he called her back after turning out Kumaribai. He admitted that about 5 years back Kumaribai was married to Mansingh and there has been no divorce between them. He denied that Kumaribai had any connection with Gendram. ( 13 ) THE facts which stand out from the above statements of the parties and witnesses may be enumerated as follows :- (I) Anandram was married to Manglibai who is still living with him and he had children from her. That was before Anandram took the petitioner-Kumaribai with him. (II) Kumaribai was married to some person about 15 years back either his name was Bhawanisingh or Mansingh. There is no allegation of divorce of Kumaribai and that person who was previous husband. He has not been examined as a witness. We do not know whether he was alive or not. (III) Kumaribai was taken as a wife of Anandram about 12 years back and they lived together as husband and wife. The marriage was by Churi custom. It was second marriage of Anandram. Two sons were born from this marriage. (IV) Although there is allegation by Anandram that Kumaribai had left him and started living with Gendram, there is no certain evidence about it. Document Ex. The marriage was by Churi custom. It was second marriage of Anandram. Two sons were born from this marriage. (IV) Although there is allegation by Anandram that Kumaribai had left him and started living with Gendram, there is no certain evidence about it. Document Ex. D-1 and evidence of one wit-ness about it is not believable on this aspect. It appears to be a concoction. (V) Kumaribai was separated from the respondent since 1985 and he is not maintaining her. ( 14 ) THE question is whether from the above facts it can be said that Kumaribai is wife of Anandram? The trial Magistrate replied in the affirmative but the Sessions Court replied in the negative on the plea that Kumaribai had not been divorced by her first husband and so she could not become married wife of second husband while she was the wife of first husband also. ( 15 ) ON this point, which is the finding of the Sessions Court, it appears that no question had been asked either from Kumaribai or Kartikram as to whether the first husband to Kumaribai was alive and whether there had been any customary divorce between them. It is important to note that so far as Anandram is concerned, he is denying even having offered Churies to her and asserts that she was only his keep. This appears a false stand taken by him in view of the statements of Kumaribai and Kartikram and a witness Gambhirsingh produced by the husband. It was for him to disclose what happened to the first husband of Kumaribai or whether he was still alive. He took false stand that he never entered into a marriage in Churi form with the claimant. ( 16 ) THE conduct of the respondent in marrying the petitioner in Churi form, suggests that her relationship with earlier husband must have come to an end. That earlier husband Bhawanisingh or Mansingh whatever his name, has not been produced. It is clear from perusal of this evidence that the marriage relationship under custom in these community of Gonds is not as sacrosanct as it is considered under Shastrik Hindu Law. In Shastrik Hindu Law there is no provision of divorce except in Shudras by custom. These Gonds are governed by their personal customs which vary on different aspects. It is clear from perusal of this evidence that the marriage relationship under custom in these community of Gonds is not as sacrosanct as it is considered under Shastrik Hindu Law. In Shastrik Hindu Law there is no provision of divorce except in Shudras by custom. These Gonds are governed by their personal customs which vary on different aspects. Divorces are rather common and second marriage of the wife is one of the indicators of end of marriage with previous husband. It is also common that a person keeps more than one wife among these Gonds. So the second marriage by Churi in the lifetime of first wife will not be called a void marriage. It will still be a marriage. ( 17 ) THERE is no evidence as to what was the custom regarding the married wife marrying another person. Learned counsel for the respon-dent argued that such a custom would be against public policy as public policy is always against polyandry as well as against polygamy. As regards polygamy the same was recognised under Shashtrik Hindu Law and even in various communities under customs it continues. Such customs are old. So far as polyandry is concerned, there is no evidence about it. In this case we cannot say that this is a case where Kumaribai married with Anandram while her earlier husband was alive. If so, Anandram would have spoken about it. He is silent. No question was asked from Kumaribai or Kartikram. So the mere fact that she was married, earlier to her marriage with Anandram will not necessarily lead to inference of continuity of earlier marriage, or that earlier husband was still alive when marriage with Anandram took place. So it cannot be said that, on that account, this marriage of the claimant with Anandram was bad, or illegal in any manner. ( 18 ) THUS the ground taken by the Sessions Court, to declare the second marriage as bad, as impermissible, fails. There is sufficient evidence for purpose of S. 125, Cr. P. C. to hold that there was a customary marriage between Anandram and Kumaribai and two children were born from that marriage. That marriage subsists. There is no evidence that Kumaribai became unchaste. Hence the petitioner-Kumaribai is entitled to maintenance from Anandram. The finding of the learned Vth Addl. Sessions Judge dismissing the petition u/s. 125, Cr. P. C. to hold that there was a customary marriage between Anandram and Kumaribai and two children were born from that marriage. That marriage subsists. There is no evidence that Kumaribai became unchaste. Hence the petitioner-Kumaribai is entitled to maintenance from Anandram. The finding of the learned Vth Addl. Sessions Judge dismissing the petition u/s. 125, Cr. P. C. is erroneous in law and has to be set aside. ( 19 ) THE result is that the impugned judgment of the Vth Addl. Sessions Judge is set aside and the order of maintenance passed by the J. M. F. C. providing maintenance to the petitioner against the respondent is restored. Considering the various legal factual aspects in the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. The appeal is accordingly accepted. Appeal allowed. .