Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. This is an application under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). It is directed against the order dated 22.5.1998 passed in Maintenance Case No. 43 (M) of 1997 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna under section 125 of the Code by which the present petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- per month to opposite party no. 1 and also a sum of Rs. 200/- per month each to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 with effect from the date of the said order. 2. The case of opposite party no.1, Madina Khatoon, was that she is legally married wife of the petitioner and their marriage was performed about 30 years ago. The petitioner is employed as a Peon in the Weights and Measure Department posted in Patna and is getting a salary of Rs. 3000/- per month. After the marriage the petitioner and opposite party no. 1 lived as husband and wife and got two daughters and three sons out of this wedlock. Opposite party no. 1 had brought this Maintenance Case on the ground that the petitioner refused to maintain her. Since she has got no means to maintain herself and her family she prayed for maintenance in the maintenance case. The Principal Judge, Family Court, after hearing the parties allowed the maintenance in the manner indicated above. It is against this order that the present revision application has been filed. 3. The petitioner has contended that he was married only once with Nashima Khatoon who figured as opposite party no. 2 in Maintenance Case No. 43 (M) of 1997. Opposite party no. 1 is not his wife and he was never married to her. The husband of opposite party no. 1 is Md. Sagiruddin and opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are their children. They are total strangers to the petitioner. It was in the year 1969 that the petitioner was married to Nashima Khatoon from whom he has got four children. Further case of the petitioner is that earlier also opposite party no. 1 had filed a case for maintenance against one Md. Sagiruddin, son of Sahimuddin (Maintenance Case No. 64 (M)/ 1996) in which ex-parte order for her maintenance was passed. The said order is still in force and opposite party no. Further case of the petitioner is that earlier also opposite party no. 1 had filed a case for maintenance against one Md. Sagiruddin, son of Sahimuddin (Maintenance Case No. 64 (M)/ 1996) in which ex-parte order for her maintenance was passed. The said order is still in force and opposite party no. 1 pan not claim maintenance from two persons describing both of them as her Husbands as polyandry is not known to Muslim Law. 4. The petitioner has contended that the judgment passed by the learned court below is iilegal and bad in law. Only interested witnesses have been examined on behalf of opposite party no. 1 who have failed to prove her marriage with the present petitioner. No evidence about this marriage has been adduced. Opposite party no. 1 has not been able to state the date, month or even the year of her marriage with the present petitioner. No document to show this marriage has been produced nor the amount of Dain Mehar has been stated Opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have not examined themselves in the court. It is absurd to believe that a wife who is living wth her husband since about 30 to 35 years does not know the name of her husband or the name of her father-in-law as according to Muslim Law even at the time of Nikah the name of the husband is declared to the bride. The petitioners name is Md. Sagir and he has got no alias name. He is never known as Md. Sagiruddin as will appear from his service record since he is in Government service. The name of his father is Samsul Haque and not Sahimuddin. The learned court below has completely ignored the evidence on record and has come to wrong conclusion. On these grounds amongst others it has been contended that the impugned order be quashed and set aside. 5. The petitioner has also filed a supplementary affidavit in which it has been reiterated that since the maintenance order of the court below against Sagiruddin the husband of Madina Khatoon (Opposite party no. 1) is still subsisting hence no order for maintenance against the present petitioner can be passed. As opposite party no. 5. The petitioner has also filed a supplementary affidavit in which it has been reiterated that since the maintenance order of the court below against Sagiruddin the husband of Madina Khatoon (Opposite party no. 1) is still subsisting hence no order for maintenance against the present petitioner can be passed. As opposite party no. 1 had earlier claimed maintenance against Sagiruddin, son of Sahimuddin and since this order of maintenance is still in-force she can not claim maintenance against the present petitioner since polyandry is prohibited in Muslim Law. 6. Opposite party no. 1 has filed a counter affidavit. She has contended that the present revision petition has not been filed by a competent person. In this revision petition the question of fact vis-avis the marriage of opposite party no. 1 with the present petitioner has been settled by the judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. This question cannot be re-opened. Opposite Party no. 1 is the legally married wife of the present petitioner and opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are the children born out of this wedlock. The learned court below has found the present opposite party no. 1 as illiterate primitive and a dull lady. She has been deserted by her husband, since last 10 years. She has got no source of income to maintain herself and her two minor children. The present petitioner Md. Sagir, son of late Samsul Haque is the same person as Md. Sagiruddin, son of late Sahimuddin and the learned court below has recorded this finding according to which a Muslim is called by different names. So far as the procedure adopted by the learned court below is concerned under section 19 (3) of the Family Courts Act, the Family Court Judge is free to adopt its own procedure. The order passed in Maintenance Case No. 64 (M)/1996 is merged with the present impugned order. The oral evidence adduced in this case have fully supported the case of opposite party no. 1. It has, accordingly, been prayed that this revision application may be dismissed. 7. The, petitioner has filed a reply to this counter affidavit in which he has again stated that opposite party no. 1 is not at all the legally married wife of the petitioner and opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are not his children. 1. It has, accordingly, been prayed that this revision application may be dismissed. 7. The, petitioner has filed a reply to this counter affidavit in which he has again stated that opposite party no. 1 is not at all the legally married wife of the petitioner and opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are not his children. It will be too much to believe that a wife even if she is illiterate does not know the name of the husband even when their marriage had taken place more than 30 years ago. The petitioner or his father have got no alias name. The name of the father of the petitioner is Samsul Haque not Sahimuddin as will appear from his service book which is Ext.B. Opposite party no. 1 has not been able to state the date, month and year of her marriage or the amount of Dain Mehar fixed. Opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have not examined themselves. Since opposite party no. 1 has already been allowed maintenance against her husband in Maintenance case No. 64 (M)/ 96 she can not claim further maintenance from the present petitioner. On these grounds it was contended that this revision application may be allowed. 8. The parties have been heard in detail on the various pleas raised by them. According to the present petitioner it is his specific case that opposite party no. 1 is not his wife and opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are not his daughter and son. As a matter of fact the specific case of the present petitioner is that the opposite parties are total strangers to his family and as such they are not entitled to any maintenance from him. As a matter of fact according to the present petitioner one Nashima Khatoon is his wife to whom he was married in the year 1967. This Nashima Khatoon had figured as opposite party no. 2 in Maintenance Case No. 48(M)/1997. Further case of the present petitioner is that earlier opposite party no. 1 had brought Maintenance Case No. 64(M)/1996 against one Md. Sagiruddin, son of late Sahimuddin. The name of the present petitioner is Md. Sagir and he is the son of late Samshul Haque. Maintenance Case No. 64(M)/1996 brought by the present opposite party no. 1 against Md. Further case of the present petitioner is that earlier opposite party no. 1 had brought Maintenance Case No. 64(M)/1996 against one Md. Sagiruddin, son of late Sahimuddin. The name of the present petitioner is Md. Sagir and he is the son of late Samshul Haque. Maintenance Case No. 64(M)/1996 brought by the present opposite party no. 1 against Md. Sagiruddin was decreed ex-parte as will appear from the order dated 5.2.1997 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. According to this ex-parte order Sagiruddin was ordered to pay a maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to opposite party no. 1 and Rs. 200/- per month each to opposite party nos. 2 and 3. This order is still inforce. In any view of the matter when opposite party no. 1 had claimed maintenance against her husband Md. Sagiruddin in Maintenance Case No. 64(M) of 1996 which was allowed ex-parte how could opposite party no. 1 again claim her maintenance from the present petitioner describing him as her husband. It is not the case of opposite party no. 1 that earlier Md. Sagiruddin was her husband and now the present petitioner happens to be her husband. There is no case of divorce between opposite party no. 1 and Md. Sagiruddin. Polyandry is something unknown in Muslim Law. in any view of the matter when once opposite party no. 1 was granted maintenance under Section 125 of the Code how could she claim and get maintenance in another case (Maintenance Case No. 43(M) of 1997) from the present petitioner? It is not clear how under the aforesaid circumstances the impunged order was passed. In the written argument filed on behalf of the opposite party it has been stated in paragraph 4 that the learned court below had already granted ex-parte maintenance to the opposite party. In has further been stated that at the stage of execution it was detected that the name of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned as Md. Sagiruddin in place of Md. Sagir and his name was corrected in Maintenance Case No. 63(M) of 1996 vide order dated 10.3.1997. No certified copy of any such order has been produced on behalf of opposite party no. 1. A plain copy of the order dated 10.3.1997 has been filed according to which the petitioner of the said case (present opposite party no. Sagir and his name was corrected in Maintenance Case No. 63(M) of 1996 vide order dated 10.3.1997. No certified copy of any such order has been produced on behalf of opposite party no. 1. A plain copy of the order dated 10.3.1997 has been filed according to which the petitioner of the said case (present opposite party no. 1) has prayed before the court to correct the name of opposite party as Md. Sagir as a result of which a report was called for from the Director-cum-Joint Controller of Weights and Measure Department, Patna Division. No report from the Director could be produced or brought on record. Moreover as will appear from the order sheet Maintenance Case No. 64(M) of 1996 was disposed of by the order dated 5.2.1997 and till then the name of husband of opposite party no. 1 could not be corrected. 9. In this connection my attention has been drawn to the observations made in the impunged judgment by the learned court below according to which since present opposite party no. 1 happens to be completely primitive, stupid and illiterate she could not correctly state the name of her husband as also that of her father-in-law. This observation of the learned court below is really surprising. If a lady howsoever illiterate she does not know the name of her husband even after 30 years of her marriage then what is can be said of her mental capacity? Can it be believed that a wife even if illiterate does not know the name of her husband even after 30 years of the marriage? In village side illiterate wives are not un-common but it is for the first time that it has been said that due to illiteracy a wife does not know the name of her husband even after 30 years of the marriage. No such plea can be accepted specially when the name of the father-in-law also does not tally. Moreover the learned court below has stated in the impugned judgment that a Muslim has got a number of names and he is not called by a single name. There is no basis for making such observation. If a person has got more than one name it is known as alias name and that person is described by his name including his alias name. There is no basis for making such observation. If a person has got more than one name it is known as alias name and that person is described by his name including his alias name. Hence I do not find any substance in any such observation made by the learned court below in the impugned judgment. 10. In the conclusion it may be stated that once a lady had claimed main- tenance under section 125 of the Code from her husband and who was already granted the same can she bring forward another case for maintenance against another person describing him also as her husband? If any maintenance to the wife is allowed in such a situation against another person the same can not be sustained in the eyes of law. 11. From the detailed discussions made above it becomes clear that the impugued order can not be sustained as it is not correct in the eyes of law. 12. In the result, this revision application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and quashed.