P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS have preferred this revision challenging the judgment dated 13-3-95 passed by the learned J. M. F. C. , Nimapara in Crl. Misc. Case No. 35 of 1987 under S. 125, Cr. P. C. She has impugned the order refusing to grant maintenance. ( 2 ) AS it reveals from the lower Court record, petitioner No. 1 claiming herself to be the legally married wife of the opposite party and petitioner No. 2 to be their daughter and alleging desertion, cruelty and lack of means to sustain their livelihood prayed for maintenance from opposite party stating that opposite party has sufficient means to pay the maintenance. In their application u/s. 125, Cr. P. C. petitioner No. 1 stated that because of intimacy between herself and opposite party, they performed secret marriage by exchange of garland in the local Radhakanta temple and when she conceived and it was known to the relations and the co-villagers, the family of the opposite party backed out. However, on the persuasion of the petitioner and the villagers on 8-5-1987 opposite party married her in accordance with the prevailing rituals. Thereafter, there was demand of dowry and when the same was not fulfilled, she was driven out from the house of the opposite party on 8-6-1987 even though she was pregnant. On 14-8-1987 she gave birth to a female child i. e. petitioner No. 2. Opposite party not only refused to receive her back, but also searched for a bride for marriage and also neglected and refused to maintain her. In the meantime as stated by her in her evidence, opposite party has already married to another woman. ( 3 ) IN his show cause, opposite party denied to the relationship and the factum of marriage either in the temple or in the alter as alleged in the petition by the petitioner No. 1. He pleaded that petitioner No. 1 is a lady of easy virtue and having illicit relationship with her brother-in-law (sister's husband) she conceived. He further pleaded that because of the family rivalry between the two families, false case has been set up to harass and humiliate him. He also denied to the alleged source of income and accordingly prayed to dismiss the cases. He further pleaded that because of the family rivalry between the two families, false case has been set up to harass and humiliate him. He also denied to the alleged source of income and accordingly prayed to dismiss the cases. ( 4 ) IT appears from the record that during the stage of hearing petitioner examined herself as P. W. 1 and tendered the evidence of her father as P. W. 2 but at a later stage on the ground of non-attendance of that witness for the purpose of cross-examination, evidence of P. W. 2 was expunged. A letter exhibited from her side has been marked as Ext. 1 and the admitted signatures of opposite party income haziras as Exts. 2, 3 and 4. The opposite party examined himself as O. P. W. No. 1 and also relied upon the evidence of three other witnesses (O. P. Ws. 2 to 4) and documents vide Exts. A to E. ( 5 ) LEARNED J. M. F. C. on assessment of evidence in record disbelieved the case of the petitioner on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, besides contradiction in the evidence of P. W. 1 to that of the evidence of O. P. Ws. He also did not accept petitioner's case relating to the opposite party's writing Ext. 1 on the ground that the bearer of the letter was not examined by her and that on comparison with Exts. 2, 3 and 4 it could not be definitely stated that the signatures appearing on such documents are similar with the signatures appearing on Ext. 1. In the same manner with a sweeping remark, he disbelieved the case of the petitioner relating to paternity of petitioner No. 2 and accepted the evidence tendered by O. P. Ws. by eliminating admission in their evidence regarding the relationship between the petitioner and opposite party as either mistaken statement or as being subsequently explained. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioner was not allowed sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence from her side and because of the time limit prescribed by this Court for disposal of the case, learned Magistate disposed of the case hastily notwithstanding the fact that petitioner No. 1 who is a destitute helpless lady was not capable of securing attendance of witnesses conveniently and promptly. In that context, on perusal of the lower Court record, it appears that lower Court has proceeded in that manner in disallowing the petitioners to adduce further evidence after granting few adjournments. For that reason, the blame cannot be attributed to the learned trial Court inasmuch as it is the petitioner who approached this Court in Crl. Misc. case No. 179 of 1993 for issue of a direction for early disposal of the case and that is how this Court issued direction for disposal of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the record and the record was thereafter put up before the Magistrate on 1-11-1994. However, as it appears last order passed in that connection (so far as the petitioner is concerned) was 24-2-1995 when the case had been posted for further order because on the previous date i. e. on 27-1-1995 new Presiding Officer had not joined. On 24-2-1995 learned J. M. F. C. after discussing the opportunity which had already been granted to the petitioner for adducing evidence passed order to expunge the evidence of P. W. 2 on the ground that the said witness was not produced on that day (24-2-1995 ). This order of learned Magistrate appears to be both illegal and arbitrary. When the case had been posted for further order and no direction had been given on 27-1-1995 that the petitioners should produce P. W. 2, the evidence of P. W. 2 could not have been expunged on 24-2-1995 without affording at least one more opportunity. Expunging of evidence of P. W. 2 has sufficiently affected the case of the petitioner inasmuch as P. W. 2, who is the father of the petitioner was the person who had taken care of the case to help her daughter and he had also deposed on material facts. When on 19-1-1995 the main order directing the petitioner to produce P. W. 2 for further examination was materially changed by the later order passed on that date and fixing the case to 27-1-1995 for further order, as stated above, expunging the evidence of P. W. 2 on 24-2-1995 was wholly illegal and unjustified. For that reason, the contention of the petitioner is found sustainable regarding lack of opportunity granted to petitioners to adduce evidence from their side. For that reason, the contention of the petitioner is found sustainable regarding lack of opportunity granted to petitioners to adduce evidence from their side. ( 7 ) WHILE challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that learned Magistrate had meticulously examined the evidence calling upon the petitioners to prove the factum of marriage beyond all shadow of doubts though it is the settled principle of law that proper evidence should be adduced to substantiate the case relating to existence of the relationship. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, argued that any woman coming and claiming herself to be the wife of a particular person is ipso facto not sufficient to establish that version and therefore no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate. Since for the reasons of not affording proper opportunity to the petitioners to adduce the evidence and for illegally expunging the evidence of P. W. 2, this Court, thinks it proper to remand this matter for fresh disposal in accordance with the direction as contained below, therefore, this Court refrains from making any comment on the manner of assessment of the evidence inasmuch as that may influence the Magistrate and may prejudice the case of the parties. In that connection all that can be said as a note of guidance to the learned Magistrate is that he is to follow the principle of law and the guidance provided in several authorities relating to appreciation of evidence relating to proof of factum of marriage and accordingly to appreciate the evidence and to record a finding. ( 8 ) AS it appears petitioner No. 1 is not capable of procuring attendance of witness except that of P. W. 2, may be due to her poverty. In such a case she is being assisted by a counsel, proper steps should have been taken much before to apply for legal aid, if necessary, so that she should not feel handicapped only due to non-availability of funds. Legal aid is meant for the purpose to assist the persons of the category of the petitioner not to suffer injustice for lack of funds, or legal assistance. Legal aid is meant for the purpose to assist the persons of the category of the petitioner not to suffer injustice for lack of funds, or legal assistance. Under such circumstances, if so required, petitioners may apply for legal aid and in that case it may be granted to her in accordance with the provision, but expeditiously and preferably within fifteen days from the date of her application. ( 9 ) ANOTHER point which may be noted only for the sake of noting that learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of argument had drawn the attention of this Court to certain admission made by C. P. Ws. relating to the factum of marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party. As noted earlier since this Court had decided to remand the matter, therefore, such evidence are not discussed so as to allow the learned trial Court to record requisite findings by proper assessment of evidence. ( 10 ) PETITIONERS are fighting this litigation since 1987 but bulk of the delay is attributable to the unreadiness of the petitioner. However, since during the course of argument, petitioners have claimed prejudice for expunging the evidence of P. W. 1 and not affording any opportunity to adduce evidence, therefore, only for the sake of ends of justice this matter is being remanded notwithstanding the fact that it will further delay the disposal of the dispute between the parties. However, a period of three months is fixed as the time limit for disposal of this case by the trial Court from the date of receipt of L. C. R. along with a copy of this order. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded back for fresh disposal in accordance with law. In addition to the evidence already tendered by the parties, if the petitioner shall produce his father i. e. P. W. 2 for the purpose of further cross-examination within a period of seven days from the date of direction to that effect which will be issued by the learned Magistrate, then opposite party shall be permitted to cross-examine him. If however petitioners shall fail to produce that witness, for no good reason on the date fixed by the lower Court, then petitioners shall not be entitled to any further latitude and learned Magistrate may pass appropriate order to expunge that evidence. If however petitioners shall fail to produce that witness, for no good reason on the date fixed by the lower Court, then petitioners shall not be entitled to any further latitude and learned Magistrate may pass appropriate order to expunge that evidence. However, it is at the discretion of the trial Court to grant one or two short adjournments, if satisfied about genuineness of the grounds advanced. If the petitioner shall pray to examine any further witnesses she may be allowed a chance in that respect, but after granting legal aid if she will apply for the same. If she shall renew her prayer for sending the document for comparison of the signatures, it is left at the discretion of the trial Court to hear and dispose of such application in accordance with law. After closure of the evidence from her side, opposite party may be afforded opportunity of adducing rebuttal/further evidence if any, from his side within a period of seven days from the date of closure of evidence from the rise of the petitioner. Soon after the closure of the evidence of both the parties, learned J. M. F. C. shall do well to hear the argument without granting any further adjournment for that purpose and to deliver the judgment within a period of seven days thereafter. As stated above, as far as possible, the case should be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of L. C. R. along with a copy of this order. No leniency or latitude for liberal adjournments should be granted in favour of either of the parties. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, the impugned order is set aside and the criminal revision is allowed and Crl. Misc. Case No. 35 of 1987 is remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law and as per the above direction. Registry is directed to ensure despatch of the L. C. R. within seven days hence and proper compliance of this direction be noted in this case record and registers, if any. Petition allowed.