JUDGMENT 1. - This order will dispose of two cases; one was filed as Cr. Misc. Petition No. 659/98 by Panna Lal Under section 482 Cr.P.C. and the other is Cr. Revision Petition No. 549/98 (Def.) by Smt. Manbhar Under section 397 CrP.C. in which defect was that the certified copy of the order dated 15.3.96 was not filed. The office put the case on the defect side on 17.2.99. It was ordered that two weeks' time is granted to remove the defects, failing, which the petition shall stand dismissed but the petitioner filed an application on 24.1.99 that the photo state copy of the order was filed but inspite of all efforts, certified copy could not be obtained as the file of the trial court was not traceable. It was also stated in this petition that the order was not challenged, therefore, the to submission of the certified copy of order dated 15.3.96 be dispensed with. I find that this revision petition Smt. Manbhar v. Panna Lal challenges the order of 18th April, 1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi and not the order of learned Magistrate dated 15.3.96. Therefore, it will be proper to allow this application. Apart from it, it may be stated that the file of the trial court was received in this court and hence the statement that file was not traceable in the court concerned is correct. Submission of the copy is dispensed with. The defect stands removed. The petition be registered as regular revision petition. It may also be stated that this Court vide order dated 31.8.2000 ordered that the revision petition be listed along with Cr Misc. Petition No. 659/98 and similarly on 29.8.2000 in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 659/98, it was ordered that the case be listed with Provision Petition No. 549/98. Hence, both the cases have come together before this Court for decision. Relevant facts may be stated as follows:- 2. Smt. Manbhar alleges that she was married to Panna Lal, petitioner and was his wife. She gave birth to a child named Manoj on 1.12.93 but it so happened before that Panna Lal kicked her out from his house. She was admitted in hospital where Manoj was born. Relevant facts may be stated as follows:- 2. Smt. Manbhar alleges that she was married to Panna Lal, petitioner and was his wife. She gave birth to a child named Manoj on 1.12.93 but it so happened before that Panna Lal kicked her out from his house. She was admitted in hospital where Manoj was born. Panna Lal came to know about it but he did not come even to see his son nor he gave any money for the maintenance to the wife or son though he has 50 to 55 bighas of land and his yearly income was Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 70,000/-. It was prayed that Manoj be given maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 400/- while Smt. Manbhar be given Rs. 500/-. This petition was filed before Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 1, Bundi as long back as on 16.2.94. The case of husband Panna Lal was that Smt. Manbhar was not his wife nor Manoj was born out of this wedlock. Panna Lal did not know Smt. Manbhar at all nor he knew her. it was further stated in the reply that Smt. Manbhar had given birth to an illegitimate child and was blackmailing the petitioner and that she had falsely implicated him in a rape case which was tried by the learned Sessions Judge in which the petitioner was acquitted and Smt. Manbhar under the influence of certain persons falsely alleged that Manoj was born out of the wedlock with the petitioner. The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence and seeing all the relevant papers and appreciating them came to the conclusion that Smt. Manbhar was married to Panna Lal and Manoj was born out of this wedlock. He, therefore, by the order dated 15.3.96 fixed Rs 500/- per month as maintenace allowance for the wife and Rs. 400/- per month to the child. Against this order, an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi by his order dated 18th April, 1998 held that it was not proved that Smt. Manbhar was the wife of the petitioner and hence was not entitled to maintenance but held that the child was definitely entitled for maintenance. He then amended the order and allowed maintenance to Manoj alone who is a boy suffering from polio. 3. He then amended the order and allowed maintenance to Manoj alone who is a boy suffering from polio. 3. Now Panna Lal has filed petition Under section 482 Cr.P.C. while Smt. Manbhar dissatisfied with the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge filed revision petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for both parties in detail and have perused the record. 5. I will first take up the revision of Smt. Manbhar and have to see if any illegality has been committed in deciding whether Smt. Manbhar was the wife of Panna Lal or not. Learned counsel for Smt. Manbhar submitted that there are judgments to the effect that even a lady who has performed Nata is entitled for maintenance Under section 125 Cr PC. It is not disputed by the other party. The judgments are in cases of Atma Ram v. Smt. Shanti Devi, (Supp. RCC 1997 page 355) and Kalu Ram v. Smt. Lachma Devi. (RCC, June, 1998, page 645) . The contention of the learned counsel for Smt. Manbhar was that if the trial court prima facie is satisfied to the performance of the marriage then court can allow the maintenance application. No need of strict proof of right requires. Reliance has been placed in case of Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Vidyut Prava Dixit & another, reported in 1999 Apradh Nirnay Journal, Page 68 , therefore, learned counsel submitted that prima facie it is proved that Smt. Manbhar was married by Nata of Panna Lal. He also contended that it is further proved from the fact that when she delivered the child in hospital, she mentioned the name of Panna Lal, resident of Chitawa to the doctors who issued certificate Ex.P. 1. He also contended that this Panna Lal faced trial for offence Under section 376 IPC for committing rape with lady Smt. Manbhar. Of course, he was acquitted but the finding of the criminal court regarding acquittal would not absolve him from the fact that it was he who had married by Nata with Smt. Manbhar. Even from the judgment in the rape case, Smt. Manbhar mentioned that she gave birth to a child whose father was Panna Lal and that she was driven away after given beatings by the person though she was living with him as his wife. Even from the judgment in the rape case, Smt. Manbhar mentioned that she gave birth to a child whose father was Panna Lal and that she was driven away after given beatings by the person though she was living with him as his wife. In the Sessions trial, she had admitted that she had gone with Panna Lal by Nata three years before with her consent. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi acquitted Panna Lal because sexual intercourse had taken place with her consent. The evidence given in the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by Smt. Manbhar has not been properly appreciated by the learned Magistrate. Smt. Manbhar stated that Panna Lal had performed Nata with her and she gave birth to a baby boy. She did admit in the cross-examination the case of opposite party that even her earlier husband's name was Panna Lal who lives in village Chandanholi and who was abandoned by her 12 years ago. Learned counsel for the husband drew to my attention to the cross-examination of the lady wherein she stated that it was the Panchas before whom Nata was performed. He contended that the Panchas have not supported it but it hardly matter because in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is Smt. Manbhar who has proved that she was a lady with whom Panna Lal resident of Chitawa had performed the Nata. Marriage by Nata is a recognised custom in Meenas to which both the parties belong. Even AW 2 Goga Lal has stated that Panna Lal kept Smt. Manbhar as his wife and Smt. Manbhar delivered a child. He admitted that the earlier husband of Smt. Manbhar whose name was also Panna Lal had married with some other lady and, therefore, he had abandoned Smt. Manbhar. He is not related to Smt. Manbhar and is an independent witness. AW 3 Mohan Lal knows the parties very well and has stated that Panna Lal and Smt. Manbhar used also live together as husband and wife. They used to visit even Panchayat Samiti. He stated that Smt. Manbhar delivered a child and then a panchayat was held in which Panna Lal was called but he did not appear at the time of panchayat but later on he came and stated that he had fulfilled the desire of Smt. Manbhar. They used to visit even Panchayat Samiti. He stated that Smt. Manbhar delivered a child and then a panchayat was held in which Panna Lal was called but he did not appear at the time of panchayat but later on he came and stated that he had fulfilled the desire of Smt. Manbhar. He is of course a related witness but there appears to be no reason why his evidence should have been discarded. By mere relationship nobody can be discarded as an interested witness. The Apex Court in case of State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and another, AIR 1981 SC 1390 has held that "related" is not equivalent to "interested". A witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation, in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A recent citation may be cited in case of Ramchamreddi Chenna Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, JT 1997 (1) SC 412 . Mohan Lal is definitely not a directly related brother of Smt. Manbhar but he admits in the cross-examination that he is brother of Smt. Manbhar in near relations but it may be seen from his statement that he is not going to get any benefit as Smt. Manbhar is not dependent on him. From the statements of these witnesses and from the documents Ex.P. 1, it is proved that Panna Lal had performed Nata with Smt. Manbhar, therefore, the learned trial Magistrate was right in holding that Smt. Manbhar was the wife of Panna Lal but the learned Appellate Judge wrongly appreciated the evidence and incorrectly held that Smt. Manbhar not being the wife of Panna Lal, was not entitled for maintenance. Therefore, the revision of Smt. Manbhar should be accepted and the order of learned Magistrate should be revived. 6. So far as maintenance to the child is concerned, learned counsel for Pannal Lal has submitted that Manoj was not entitled for maintenance as he was not a child born out of wedlock between Pannal Lal and Smt. Manbhar. He also submitted that of course Pannal Lal faced trial Under section 376 IPC but he secured acquittal and hence it cannot be accepted that Manoj was the child legitimate or illegitimate of Panna Lal. He also submitted that of course Pannal Lal faced trial Under section 376 IPC but he secured acquittal and hence it cannot be accepted that Manoj was the child legitimate or illegitimate of Panna Lal. My attention goes to Section 125 Cr.P.C. which provides that even an illegitimate minor child is entitled for maintenance Under section 125 Cr.P.C. Manoj is a child of Panna Lal is held by two courts below on the basis of evidence. There is no reasonable ground to set aside the finding of the two courts below that Manoj is (sic.) entitled for maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month. The child is crippled one. Pannal Lal was definitely father as proved from Ex.P-1 which is certificate issued by Medical Officer, Government Hospital to whom Smt. Manbhar stated at the time of delivery that the father of the child was Panna Lal. Learned counsel submitted that this certificate may not be the final proof and that no D.N.A. test was performed, hence, it should not be held that Manoj was the son of Panna Lal. Needless to say that no such prayer was made by Panna Lal before the courts below and now when the two courts have given a concurrent finding, the matter is not so vital that it may be remanded Under section 482 Cr.P.C. to the trial court with a direction to get D.N.A. test performed. Circumstances as they are on record are very clear and that speak volumes about the paternity of the child to the effect that it was Panna Lal who is (sic.) the father of the child. Consequently, Panna Lal is (sic.) under an obligation to give maintenance to the child. 7. In view of above discussion, the petition Under section 482 Cr.P.C. (S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 659/98) filed by Panne Lal is hereby dismissed while the revision petition No. 549/98 filed by Smt. Manbhar is allowed and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi dated 18.4.1998, so far it relates to the non-allowance of maintenance to Smt. Manbhar, is set aside while the order of learned Magistrate dated 15.3.1996 is hereby revived.Revision Allowed. *******