Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. Opposite party set judicial process in motion seeking grant of maintenance cost, on accusation of matrimonial discord with her husband, sexual aberration committed by the petitioner husband, maltreatment meted out to her pursuant to contracting marriage with another lady, namely, Geeta Devi, the husband refusing to maintain her and eventually ousting her from the matrimonial house. After judicial process was set in motion, petitioner was issued show cause to answer the charges brought by the opposite party Usha Devi, and in the show cause that was filed, without denying the factum of marriage in so many express words, petitioner simply resisted the legality of marriage with a female who did not possess characteristics of a woman. 2. In the proceeding that eventually commenced, applicant, who is opposite party before this Court, examined as many as nine number of witnesses including herself, her father, family members, priest, barber, maid servant and others who had been stating with sustained consistency before the Court below about marriage of Usha Devi having been solemnised with petitioner in the year 1974. Witnesses would make narration before the Court that after opposite party got employment and was employed as Junior Engineer in Irrigation Department, he contracted another marriage with one Geeta Devi, in the year 1985 and it seems that for the offence of bigamy and cruelty allegedly meted out to Usha Devi, the wife sought his prosecution in another criminal case which was eventually dropped, in view of accord between the parties. Narrations made by the witnesses have been broadly spelt out in the judgment of the court below which did not require reiteration, However, that is discussed with brevity for appreciation of the contentions raised at Bar on behaif of the petitioner. 3. Those who claimed to be material witnesses were Raghunath Singh (AW 1). father of opposite party, who while virtually reiterating the narrations made by the opposite party in her petition, would narrate before the court about woes of his daughter. He states that after celebration of marriage in 1974, his daughter remained for a fortnight in her matrimonial house, and after second marriage was performed, she visited her father-in-laws house, and after 2-3 years, she came back to her parents house. He states that after celebration of marriage in 1974, his daughter remained for a fortnight in her matrimonial house, and after second marriage was performed, she visited her father-in-laws house, and after 2-3 years, she came back to her parents house. The husband had been visiting her when she stayed in his house, and it was only after getting employment, that opposite party contracted another marriage and made the opposite party destitute. Narration about celebration of marriage of the petitioner with opposite party, and petitioner, enjoying conjugal life with her, may be for some time, had been narrated also by Chandrika Singh (A.W.2), Arjun Pandey, Hindu Priest (A. W, 3), Mudeshwar Pandey, Priest (A.W.4) and Kamia Devi, maid servant (A.W.5). Applicant, who was A.W.6; while reiterating her earliest version would narrate about celebration of marriage with the petitioner and eventually torture having been meted out to her, after the petitioner got employment and contracted another marriage with Geeta Devi. 4. The petitioner outnumbered the applicant in examination of witnesses, as not less than 11 witnesses were examined on his part, ostensibly to counter the allegations attributed to him either about factum of marriage or any torture meted out to her. The witnesses would rather state before the Court that in fact opposite party was married with a girl at Mithapur, Patna. Some witnesses had been stating that the bride was residing at Parmanandpur, Patna and narration made by these witnesses can be noticed with brevity. Though Jogendra Prasad (D.W.1) resides in village Mai, he did not respond to some questions which could show his familiarity with the petitioner or his household affairs. Ram Babu Yadav (D.W.2) hails from village Dihuri and in similar vein and term, he too states that the petitioner was not married with opposite party. He states to have learnt about marriage from others. He does not know as to whether petitioner was employed in service. He was not in a position to say as to where the other male members of the fam ily were married. Bashishtha Prasad (D.W.3), who hails from village Mai, states that opposite party did not reside with the petitioner, and similar had been the evidence of Shamful Devi (D.W.4), who claims to be sister of the petitioner. He was not in a position to say as to where the other male members of the fam ily were married. Bashishtha Prasad (D.W.3), who hails from village Mai, states that opposite party did not reside with the petitioner, and similar had been the evidence of Shamful Devi (D.W.4), who claims to be sister of the petitioner. She stated that her brother was married in Parmanandpur at Patna and he was never with opposite party, with whom she was alleged to be married. Narrations almost in similar vein and terms were made also by other witnesses, and the petitioner too refuted all the accusations attributed to him and would deny the factum of marriage with opposite party. 5. Some arguments canvassed at Bar on behalf of the petitioner can be noticed. Learned counsel would urge that some observations made by the Court below were not borne out from the record, and the court below has committed error in appreciating the evidences placed on the record. Contentions are raised that even though the petitioner had been denying factum of .marriage in his, show cause filed before the court, court below had made adverse comments. However, on this score, I find that the petitioner without making express denial of the celebration of marriage with the opposite party, in his show cause, had simply questioned the legality of marriage. Other limb of argument canvassed on behalf of the petitioner was that though a good number of witnesses were examined by the petitioner too; narrations made by them were not taken into consideration by the court. Other contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the moot question that is required to be determined by the court, in view of express denial made by the petitioner in the show cause about opposite party not possessing characteristics of a female, was to get the sex of opposite party determined by a competent authority and only then the court can reach to a proper conclusion. 6. Learned counsel lor the opposite party while resisting the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner would urge that narrations made by the witnesses examined on behalf of opposite party were of those persons who were family members and also those who attended the marriage ceremony of the petitioner with opposite party and there was no good reason to disbelieve them. 7. 7. Having gone through the evidence of the witnesses examined by the opposite party, one cannot fail to notice that the witnesses examined were not only family members, father, priest, maid servant, and barber, but also other villagers. Since the court below had placed implicit reliance on some letters purporting to be written by the petitioner to the opposite party, it was alleged that onus was on the opposite party to get the genuineness of the letters determined, of which the petitioner was said to be author, but the trial court adversely made comments on this score too. Though opposite party in his evidence had broadly refused those letters to be in his writings, rightly when these letters were placed on the record in the evidence of the opposite party, barring some bald suggestions, there was no express denial by the petitioner to be author of those fetters. Some other features of the case, which have been brought to my notice cannot be overlooked. When the petitioner agitated before the Court below about examination of the opposite party by a Medical Board, matter was carried even upto High Court when in Cr.W.J.C. No. 22 of 1998, a Bench of this Court overruled the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner about legality of examination of the opposite party by Medical Board, since such issues about determination of sex and as to whether the marriage was void could not have been determined in such proceeding. The chapter is yet not closed, as it seems that before annulment of marriage, the petitioner has also taken recourse to civil remedy available to him in Matrimonial Case No. 3 of 1999 and when similar questions were raised by the petitioner in the proceeding, the opposite party carried the matter to High Court in Civil Revision No. 1383 of 200Q. Again contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was overruled by the Court. Narrations made by the witnesses do suggest that even after marriage, couple were not blessed with a child. 8. Regard being had to the narrations made by the witnesses, a brief resume of which has been given and also quality of evidence and nature and character of the witnesses, I am persuaded to come to a conclusion that the finding recorded by the court below did not require interference. 8. Regard being had to the narrations made by the witnesses, a brief resume of which has been given and also quality of evidence and nature and character of the witnesses, I am persuaded to come to a conclusion that the finding recorded by the court below did not require interference. As to the question of financial capacity of the petitioner, income derived by him from salary and other sources were also given due regard by the court below. There being no merit, this revision application is dismissed. All the orders passed by this Court previously shall stand vacated.