MALAY KUMAR BASU, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against the judgement and order dated 31/05/2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia under which he allowed a petition under Section 125, Cr. P. C. and awarded maintenance in favour of the wife to the tune of Rs. 500/- for the wife herself and Rs. 300/- for the child payable by the husband O. P. within the 15th day of every month and the learned Magistrate further directed that the order was to take effect from the date on which it was passed. Being aggrieved by that order the husband has preferred the present revision-petition under Sections 397/401, Cr. P. C. challenging the order as erroneous, illegal, unjustified and liable to be set aside. ( 2 ) THE case of the applicant wife was that she had been married by the O. P. Sunil Soren according to the Hindu rites. Because they were members of santal community they were hinduisal and used to follow the traditions and customs that are followed by the Hindu wives performing the ceremonies like the marriage ceremony. After marriage they lived as husband and wife together for several years and a child was born out of their wedlock. But the husband started torturing her both physically and mentally for no fault of her when her father failed to fulfil the demand of her husband for a motor cycle. Finally he drove her away from his house while she was carrying for six months. She took shelter in her father's house and subsequently the husband married again. She has no income of her own and has been passing her days with great hardship and under such circumstances she filed the application for maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P. C. Her husband had a monthly income of about Rs. 3000/- and has landed properties where the paddy etc. is grown. ( 3 ) THE husband O. P. contested that application of the wife by filing a written objection alleging therein that the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act would not be applicable to their case, because their marriage was performed not according to the Hindu religion or rites but according to the traditions and customs followed by the santal community and she is not entitled to claim any maintenance under such circumstances. ( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate after taking evidence from both the parties and hearing arguments has been of the opinion that the petitioner wife had been able to substantiate her alleged marriage according to the Hindu rites and also her claim that her family has been hinduised by practising and following the traits of Hindu religion and religious practices and customs and therefore she was a legally married wife of the O. P. husband and since the other ingredients of the provisions of Section 125 were also proved by her namely, that she had been driven by her husband from his house and she had no independent source of income to maintain herself and further that the husband had sufficient means and income to provide for her maintenance, she was entitled to get an order of maintenance in her favour and accordingly the learned Magistrate has awarded the above mentioned sums towards the maintenance of the wife as well as her child. ( 5 ) MRS. Maity, learned Advocate for the husband who is the revisional-applicant before this Court has drawn my attention to the provisions of Section 2 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act whereunder the provisions of this Act are not applicable to a member of a scheduled tribe unless the Central Government by notification in the official gazette otherwise directs. According to Mrs. Maiti the parties having been admittedly members of the santal community this bar of Section 2 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act will be applicable with all its force and the wife cannot claim validity of her alleged marriage according to the Hindu rites. As against this the contention of Mr. Mondal, learned Advocate for the wife is that this bar will not be attracted to this case in view of the fact that there is sufficient evidence to show that the parties have been hinduised that is to say, they have been following the traditions and customs of the Hindu religion and in view of such huduisation they are entitled to have their marriages according to the Hindu rites and in view of proof of the alleged marriage as per Hindu rites furnished by the wife successfully she will be entitled to get the maintenance as prayed for. ( 6 ) BUT as against this the contention of Mrs. ( 6 ) BUT as against this the contention of Mrs. Maiti is that the alleged hiduisation cannot be said to have been proved for the reason that the witnesses are silent as to the point of time since when they started to hinduised. This contention does not appear to be much impressive because on an analysis of the evidence on record, particularly the depositions of the P. W. 1, the wife herself, it appears that her clear statement that the parties have been following the practice and traditions of Hindu religion in several respects and thereby they have been hinduised have not been subjected to the slightest cross-examination. Such statement of the P. W. 1 remains totally unchallenged so that the Court cannot but accept such statement as admitted and take the claim of the wife that they have been hinduised by following such customs of the Hindu religion for example participation in and performance of Durga puja implanting of tulsi plant on an alter at their house and following the various rituals of Hindu religion remained totally unchallenged in her cross-examination. In support of his argument Mr. Mondal has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in 2000 WBLR (SC) 522 wherein their lordships have held that in view of clear finding that the parties are following the customs of Hindus and not of the Santals, Section 2 of the said Act of 1956 excludes the present parties from the purview of the said Act. It will not be attracted to them and as a result the widow in question although otherwise not eligible to right of inheritance to properties will be in this case entitled to inherit and succeed to the properties left by her husband because the provisions of Hindu Succession Act will be applicable to her family because of the fact of their hinduisation having been established. Mr. Mondal has rightly argued that this trend of liberal interpretation of the provisions debarring a particular community from enjoying the benevolent provisions of a particular Act should be extended to the case of Hindu Marriage Act also because otherwise the spirit underlying the salutary findings of the Apex Court will be disregarded. Mr. Mondal has rightly argued that this trend of liberal interpretation of the provisions debarring a particular community from enjoying the benevolent provisions of a particular Act should be extended to the case of Hindu Marriage Act also because otherwise the spirit underlying the salutary findings of the Apex Court will be disregarded. In the present case, since the testimony of the witness that the parties have been hinduised and have been following the customs and usages of hindu religion remained totally unchallenged it must be held that the allegations of the wife that the parties are hinduised must be taken as correct and that being so the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act should also be applied irrespective of whether there has been any notification of the Central Government as enshrined under the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of S. 2 of the Act. ( 7 ) THE next question is whether the wife can be said to have established her allegation that she was married by the O. P. husband as per Hindu rites. In order to prove this story of marriage the wife has examined herself as well as two more witnesses who appear to be disinterested persons of the neighbourhood. All the three have testified to the rites and rituals which were performed in such marriage ceremony as alleged according to to the Hindu religion and custom. They have named certain rituals like mala badal, sindur dan gaye halud, wearing of new cloth, wearing of iron bungle and wedding feast. It is conspicuous to note that such statements of P. W. 1 or the P. W. 3 who is the priest who conducted this marriage have not been subjected to any cross-examination at all. In her cross-examination the P. W. 1 has stated that they believe in santal religion and they have rightly performed according to the santal religion. It is contended by Mrs. Maiti that these statements are sufficient to show that her alleged marriage could not be according to the Hindu rites and according to such statement such marriage if at all would have been performed according to the santals customs and rituals. But this is not correct in the very first instance which has been taken from this witness in her cross-examination that their marriage was performed according to the Hindu religion and customs. But this is not correct in the very first instance which has been taken from this witness in her cross-examination that their marriage was performed according to the Hindu religion and customs. Thereafter these two lines have been taken, without making any reference to the factum of marriage. Therefore when there is a specific statement to the effect that her marriage was performed according to the Hindu religion and custom and in the next line she says that she believes in santal religion or that the rituals are performed according to the santal religion certainly such statements do not refer to marriage but they indicate a generalisation which has nothing to bear upon the specific statement made by the witness at the very first instance. ( 8 ) MRS. Maiti draws my attention to the statement of this witness. This P. W. 1 states few lines down therefrom to the effect that the 'laya' that is the priest, got their marriage performed according to the santal rituals and contends that this is enough to show that her earlier statement is falsified and the alleged marriage took place according to the santal religion and not according to the Hindu religion. But I am afraid that this contention will have no legs to stand upon. As per the cardinal rules of evidence a witness cannot be confronted with the same question over and over again. At the very first instance in the very cross-examination the question was put to the witness to which she answered that her marriage was performed according to the Hindu religion and customs and thereafter, subsequently again the very same question was put to her and a different answer is obtained and this is not permissible under the law of evidence. The same question cannot be put to a witness twice to get a different answer. Therefore the answer given by her subsequently will be treated as expugned and no reliance will be placed thereupon. As I have pointed out the other two witnesses who are not related to the P. W. 1 and appear to be distinterested have deposed regarding the performance of the alleged marriage as per Hindu rites and those statements of them have not been challenged in the cross-examination. Mrs. As I have pointed out the other two witnesses who are not related to the P. W. 1 and appear to be distinterested have deposed regarding the performance of the alleged marriage as per Hindu rites and those statements of them have not been challenged in the cross-examination. Mrs. Maiti has contended that the marriage as per Hindu rites as alleged by the wife petitioner cannot be taken as fully substantiated because of the omission of all the witnesses to mention the essential rite which is called saptapadi forming part of the rituals of Hindu Marriage. It is true that the witnesses have not mentioned about this important item "saptpadi" while mentioning the other rites namely, sindurdan, malabadal, gaye halud, wearing of iron bugles, wearing of new cloth etc. to my mind simple omission to mention one of the rituals should not be treated as fatal particularly when so many rites and rituals were being observed so doggedly by the parties as per the testimony of all the witnesses. This will be more so, when it will be considered that it is not a criminal case under S. 494 I. P. C. or a civil suit for divorce or any case like that but it is simply a petition for maintenance under S. 125, Cr. P. C. in case of which strict proof of marriage is not required, because this section of the law is intended mainly to prevent vagrancy and enable helpless, poor women to be safeguarded against destitution and starvation. The evidence that has been forthcoming in support of the alleged marriage remaining unchallenged will in my opinion be enough for this Court to take the alleged marriage as per Hindu Shastras as established. ( 9 ) AS regards the other ingredients of the provisions of S. 125, Cr. P. C. there is no doubt on the point that the wife has got no independent source of income. Regarding the question whether the husband has sufficient means to provide for her maintenance the findings of the learned Magistrate appear to be fully logical and justified and hence I do not find any fault with his decision in that regard. ( 10 ) MRS. Regarding the question whether the husband has sufficient means to provide for her maintenance the findings of the learned Magistrate appear to be fully logical and justified and hence I do not find any fault with his decision in that regard. ( 10 ) MRS. Maiti contends that the document on the basis of which the court below came to its finding regarding the income of the husband was very much disputed and on that basis the financial capacity of the husband could not be ascertained and his income could not be taken as Rs. 3000/- a month. It is the contention of Mrs. Maity that her client works as hired labourer and that too, during a limited period of a month and not throughout the whole month. But the well established principle that has been settled by the Apex Court time and again is that a person who is able-bodied and healthy and who has married and has voluntarily undertaken the responsibility of maintaining a family must discharge that responsibility and, for that purpose, he is supposed to be in a position to earn and, if necessary, even to work as a day labourer everyday. Therefore, Mrs. Maity's prayer that the amount of maintenance should be reduced to some extent does not stand to reason, because for two heads the amount of Rs. 800/- appears to be the modest possible one. ( 11 ) IT is not the case of the husband that the wife has any independent source of income or that the income of his own is not what has been alleged to be. Under such circumstances the findings of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate appear to be quite justified and I do not find any reason for interfering with the same. Accordingly the impugned order of the Court below be affirmed and the revisional application be dismissed. Revision dismissed.