JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Both the Petitioners filed application u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure registered as Misc. Case No. 66 of 1996 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sohella. They claimed maintenance from the opposite party on the ground that Petitioner No. 1 is the wife of the opposite party and Petitioner No. 2 was born out of the wed-lock. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sohella, as per his judgment dated 2.9.1998 rejected the claim of the Petitioner on the ground that Petitioners have not proved their status as wife and child of the opposite party. 2. On perusal of the application u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure and the evidence on record this Court found and learned Counsel for the Petitioners conceded that Petitioner No. 1 has not proved her status as the wife of the opposite party to claim maintenance from him. Mr. S. Misra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, however, argued that the fact and evidence on record clearly prove that Petitioner No. 2 is the illegitimate child of the opposite party and therefore learned Magistrate should not have rejected the claim of maintenance of Petitioner No. 2. Mr. H.S. Misra, learned Counsel for the opposite party, vehemently opposes the aforesaid contention of the Petitioners of the grounds that (i) there is no evidence worth the name to show or suggest that Petitioner No. 2 was begotten because of illicit relationship between the opposite party and the Petitioner No. 1 and (ii) no specific issue had been raised in this revision claiming maintenance for Petitioner No. 2 as illegitimate child by specifically challenging the impugned finding in that manner. 3. He also argued on merit and contended that even the Petitioner No. 2 is not entitled to any maintenance. He also argued that this Court being the provisional Court it should not re-assess the evidence unless illegality or perversity is alleged and established so far as the assessment of evidence made by the trial court. 4. The present revision in view of the aforesaid circumstance remains confined to consideration as to whether the Petitioner No. 2 is entitled to maintenance as an illegitimate child of the opposite party. 5. It is proved on record that mothers of Petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party are two sisters. 4. The present revision in view of the aforesaid circumstance remains confined to consideration as to whether the Petitioner No. 2 is entitled to maintenance as an illegitimate child of the opposite party. 5. It is proved on record that mothers of Petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party are two sisters. As stated in the application u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure because of poverty in her house Petitioner No. 1 was staying in the house of her 'Mausi' (mother's sister) i.e., in the house of the opposite party. It appears from her contention that she developed intimacy with opposite party and on his assurance of marriage they cohabited. Because of such sexual intercourse, she became pregnant and thereafter the dispute started. According to her, notwithstanding the assurance given by the opposite party he backed out, so also his parents refused to accept her as the wife of the opposite party. Ultimately she delivered a child i.e., the Petitioner No. 2. They being in destitute condition she claimed for maintenance u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure 6. To substantiate her case, Petitioners examined as many as five witnesses. Petitioner No. 1 examined herself as P.W. No. l and her father as P.W. No. 5. Two co-villagers of the parties, were examined as P. Ws 2 and 3 to state that Petitioner No. 1 was staying in the house of opposite party and because of illicit relationship Petitioner No. 1 conceived and delivered the child i.e., Petitioner No. 2. Petitioners also examined P.W. No. 4 who was the Director of the Koshala Samaj (a caste Panchayat) and he stated that he was present in the meeting convened to resolve the dispute between the parties. According to him, in that meeting when advised by the gentlemen attending that meeting to accept the Petitioner No. 1 as the wife of opposite party, he and his father refused. Opposite Party also examined five witnesses including himself as O.P.W. No. 1. O.P. Ws 2 and 3 have claimed to be the co-villagers of the parties and denied about Petitioner No. 1 staying- in the house of opposite party or he having any connection with her pregnancy. O.P. Ws 4 and 5 are two laborers working in Mahalaxmi Rice Mill at Barapali, where they reside. O.P. Ws 2 and 3 have claimed to be the co-villagers of the parties and denied about Petitioner No. 1 staying- in the house of opposite party or he having any connection with her pregnancy. O.P. Ws 4 and 5 are two laborers working in Mahalaxmi Rice Mill at Barapali, where they reside. They have stated that opposite party never resided in the village and that all throughout he was staying with his father who is their (P.W.s 4 & 5) co-worker at Barapali. No document was tendered in evidence by either of the parties. 7. In the impugned judgment, learned Magistrate disbelieved the evidence of the Petitioners on the ground that Petitioner No. 1 as P.W. No. l made prevaricating statement relating to the period during which she was in her aunt's (Mousi) house and what was her age then. In that respect, learned Magistrate wanted a rustic illiterate girl like P.W.l to be precise and accurate arithmetically to state her age and exact period of her stay in the house of the opposite party. Since learned Magistrate found fault with the evidence of the Petitioner in the above indicated manner therefore with a sweeping remark he scored through the corroborating evidence of P. Ws 2 to 5. In that context, learned Magistrate did not consider what is the evidentiary value of the Petitioner relating to alleged relationship. He also did not consider evidence adduced by the opposite party. Thus, there is no hesitation for this Court to come to conclusion that learned Magistrate has not followed the established principle of law for appreciating evidence to adjudicate a dispute of the present nature. 8. In a case of this nature, Courts are required to adopt a pragmatic approach and to avoid technicalities while in the pursuit of granting substantial justice. In that process Court has to remember that a proceeding u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure is not a criminal trial where the requirement of law is that complainant or the prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. On the other hand a proceeding u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure being a quasi civil proceeding entire evidence on record is to be considered with preponderance of probabilities. After perusal of the evidence on record, as noted above, this Court finds that learned Magistrate has departed from that while assessing the evidence on record. On the other hand a proceeding u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure being a quasi civil proceeding entire evidence on record is to be considered with preponderance of probabilities. After perusal of the evidence on record, as noted above, this Court finds that learned Magistrate has departed from that while assessing the evidence on record. Therefore, the provisional Court cannot be a silent spectator or a consenting party to such illegality. 9. As noted earlier, because of weak evidence, Petitioner No. 1 has conceded that she has not been able to prove her status as the wife of the opposite party. Under such circumstance she is not entitled to maintenance u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure That provision of law also entitles an illegitimate child to claim maintenance from the parent during the minor hood if it has no independent source of income to maintain itself and in that case the father is liable to pay maintenance to the child. That position of law is not disputed by the parties. According to the opposite party he is not the author of the child and therefore Petitioner No. 2 is not his illegitimate child. In that context, the evidence is to be perused and accordingly appropriate order is to be passed relating to grant or refusal of maintenance in as much as opposite party has not advanced a claim that he is not an able-bodiedma. 10. Petitioner No. 1 is a rustic illiterate village girl in an undeveloped and tribal inhabited interior part in the district of Bargarh whereas the opposite party is a literate person and he has enough of educational background having undertaken higher studies in College. In her evidence, P.W. No. l stated that she stayed in the house of the opposite party for over seven years. She started living in that house when she was a child and the opposite party proposed for relationship after she grew up. She has further stated that by the time the illicit relationship developed between her and the opposite party, then the opposite was studying in College. She has further stated that she conceived due to the illicit relationship with the opposite and she submitted for sexual co-habitation on the assurance of marriage by the opposite party and when opposite party put vermilion on her fore-head. She has further stated that she conceived due to the illicit relationship with the opposite and she submitted for sexual co-habitation on the assurance of marriage by the opposite party and when opposite party put vermilion on her fore-head. She has further stated that after her pregnancy the dispute arose between the families and on the refusal to accept her as the wife of opposite party a caste panchayat was convened and in that the opposite party and his father declined to accept her as the wife of the opposite party. That is the substance of the evidence given by P.W. No. 1. In his evidence, P.W.2 a co-villager of the parties, has deposed about the Petitioner No. 1 staying in the house of the opposite party from her childhood and after pregnancy of Petitioner No. 1, a caste panchayat (termed as 'Mahasablla') being convened of which he (P.W. No. 2) is one of the members and opposite party did not offer any explanation in that meeting. He has also stated that Petitioner No. 1 stayed in the house of opposite party for about 7 to 8 years. In his evidence, P.W.3, another co-villager of the parties, has stated that Petitioner No. 1 was staying in the house of the opposite party for about 7 to 8 years and after her pregnancy and when she delivered a child he could know about the dispute between the parties and in that respect, he has no direct knowledge about the physical relationship between the parties. P.W. No. 5 is the father of the Petitioner No. 1. In his evidence he has stated that since the age of about 8 years, Petitioner No. 1 was staying in the family of the opposite party. When he discovered pregnancy of the Petitioner No. 1, on being asked, Petitioner No. 1 disclosed about assurance given by the opposite party for a marriage after putting vermilion on her forehead and co-habiting with her to cause that pregnancy. He has further stated that when the family of the opposite party declined to accept Petitioner No. 1 as the wife of the opposite party, a caste Panchayat was convened and that Panchayat also suggested to the opposite party and his father to accept her as the wife of the opposite party. He has further stated that when the family of the opposite party declined to accept Petitioner No. 1 as the wife of the opposite party, a caste Panchayat was convened and that Panchayat also suggested to the opposite party and his father to accept her as the wife of the opposite party. Evidence of P.W. No. 4, Director of Koshla Samaj, is relating to the caste Panchayat and suggestion given to the opposite party and his father to accept Petitioners as the wife and child of the opposite party but they refused. P.W. No. 4 has however stated that he has no direct or personal knowledge abut the inter se relationship between the Petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party. 11. In his evidence opposite party has stated that P.W. No. l never resided with his family at any point of time and there is strained relationship between the two families since last ten years because of a land dispute in as much as father of P.W. No. l after receiving a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- declined to execute and register a sale deed for about one acre of land. In cross-examination, he stated that such dispute arose between the by families about five years back from the date of deposition. He has further stated that his family has dwelling house both at village Beherapali (native place of both the parties) and at Barapali and his family has three acres of landed property and that they go and stay for some time in the village (Beherapali). He has also stated that in the year 1995, he married to one Jamuna of another village. He has also denied the allegations of illicit relationship with the Petitioner No. 1 and causing her pregnant. Opposite Party Witness No. 2, a co-villager of the parties, at Beherapali has stated that Petitioner No. 1 never stayed in the family of the opposite party, she is of loose character and working as a laborer in a crusher and that she has also made abortion of a second pregnancy. Opposite Party Witness No. 2, a co-villager of the parties, at Beherapali has stated that Petitioner No. 1 never stayed in the family of the opposite party, she is of loose character and working as a laborer in a crusher and that she has also made abortion of a second pregnancy. In the cross-examination he has stated that father of the opposite party has got only 11/2 acres of landed properties, he is a resident of a different street, he cannot disclose the source from which he could learn about termination of pregnancy by the Petitioner No. 1, and he does not know if the Petitioner No. 2 was born out of illicit sexual relationship between the Petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party. He has also stated that relationship between the two families became strained about five years before. O.P.W. No. 3 is a co-villager of the parties. He has also stated that Petitioner No. 1 never stayed in the family of the opposite party either at Beherapali or at Barapali and she is living with her parents all throughout. He has further stated that the Petitioner No. 1 delivered the child, that is Petitioner No. 2, because of sexual relationship with somebody but opposite party has no connection in that respect. He has also stated that there was no caste Panchayat and further that he does not know anything against the character or chastity of the Petitioner No. 1. In the cross-examination he has stated that he never attends any caste meeting of their caste. O.P. Ws 4 and 5 are two co-workers of the father of the opposite party. Each of them have stated in their evidence that they are neighbors of the father of the opposite party in Mill premises at Barapali and that the family of the opposite party stays at Barapali and no maid servant or female worker was ever engaged in their family. In the cross-examination, O.P.W. No. 4 has stated that father of the opposite party is the Supervisor of the laborers working in that mill and he is not in visiting term to the house of the father of the opposite party and he cannot say in which village the opposite party has married. He has also stated that he cannot say about persons visiting the house of the opposite party at Barapali. He has also stated that he cannot say about persons visiting the house of the opposite party at Barapali. On the other hand, in the cross-examination, O.P.W. No. 4 has stated that father of the opposite party is a Hemali (laborer) like O.P.W. No. 5. He has, however, admitted that he is not in visiting term to the house of the father of the opposite party. The above noted evidence is the total evidence available on record so as to adjudicate the dispute. 12. Admittedly, Petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party are closely {elated to each other as their mothers are two sisters. Both of them are residents of the same village i.e. village Beherapali. When that is the background of the relationship it cannot be accepted by a reasonable man that Petitioner No. 1 with the aid and assistance of her parents will foist a false case against the opposite party. of course, such possibility cannot be ruled out if there is enmity or dispute between the two families because of any circumstance. In this case, non-execution of a registered sale deed about five years before 1998 has been projected by the opposite party as the cause of dispute between the two families. In that respect, opposite party has signally failed to bring any convincing evidence on record. Therefore, evidence of the Petitioners in this case stands to reasonableness and probabilities that after the pregnancy of the Petitioner No. 1 the dispute arose between the families and not an account of any land dispute or proposed sale transaction. So far as the relationship between the Petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party is concerned, neither party could have produced evidence of eye-witness of actual co-habitation between the two. Therefore, in that respect, it is a case of oath v. oath available to the Court from the evidence of P.W. No. l and the O.P.W. No. 1 and the attendant circumstantial evidence adduced by each of the parties. Therefore, in that respect, it is a case of oath v. oath available to the Court from the evidence of P.W. No. l and the O.P.W. No. 1 and the attendant circumstantial evidence adduced by each of the parties. The evidence of O.P.W. No. 1, as noted above, gets ample support from the evidence of P. Ws 2 to 5 relating to her stay in the family of the opposite party whereas in that respect, evidence of the O.P. Ws 2 to 5 is not found credible in as much as P.W.s 4 and 5 have admitted in their cross-examination that they were not in visiting term to the house of the opposite party. Apart from that, those two witnesses have not stated that Petitioner No. 1 was not staying with the family of the opposite party. In that context, it is to be borne in mind that Petitioner No. 1 being a niece to the parents of the opposite party, therefore, she was neither a maid servant nor a female worker in their family. Similarly, O.P.W. Nos. 2 and 3 have not accounted for as to during which period they did not see Petitioner No. 1 staying in the family of the opposite party in as much as according to the common case of both the parties, the family of the opposite was sometimes staying at Barapali and sometimes at Beherapali. Apart from that it is readable from the evidence of O.P. Ws 2 and 3 that they were eager to help the opposite party at the cost of the truth. For the reasons indicated above, this Court finds an acceptable case, that Petitioner No. 1 during her childhood and adolescence stayed in the house of the opposite party and during such stay she conceived, as a result of which, she was ousted from the company in the family of the opposite party. In the absence of specific allegation and proof that Petitioner No. 1 kept sexual relationship with anybody else during her period of stay in the house of the opposite.party, her evidence relating to cause of pregnancy is found credible to be accepted to record the finding that opposite party is the father of the illegitimate child i.e., Petitioner No. 2. In the absence of specific allegation and proof that Petitioner No. 1 kept sexual relationship with anybody else during her period of stay in the house of the opposite.party, her evidence relating to cause of pregnancy is found credible to be accepted to record the finding that opposite party is the father of the illegitimate child i.e., Petitioner No. 2. As noted above, evidence was neither perused nor assessed by the Court below taking an overall picture of the factors and circumstances involved in the case and evidence adduced from both the parties for which the Court below failed to record a proper finding on fact. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion and finding this Court finds that Petitioners have proved Petitioner No. 2 as the illegitimate child of the opposite party and, he is legally bound to provide maintenance to the Petitioner No. 2 and it is from the date of application. Since Petitioners have not been able to lead credible evidence relating to the source of income and the monthly or annual income of the opposite party, therefore, keeping in view his educational background and capability as an able-bodied man, it is considered by this Court that his monthly income is not less that Rs. 1500/- per month. Since the Petitioners have claimed a monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- for both of them as in the year 1996, this Court grants a monthly maintenance of Rs. 250/- (two hundred and fifty) in favor of the Petitioner No. 2, which the opposite party is bound to pay from the date of application, i.e., from July, 1996. The opposite party may pay the arrear maintenance in four equal monthly installments within a period of four months, failing which Petitioner No. 1 as the guardian of Petitioner No. 2 shall be entitled to execute the order in accordance with law. So far as the running maintenance dues are concerned, opposite party shall pay the same by the 10th (according to English calendar) of each succeeding month such monthly maintenance dues. 14. Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed in party by setting aside the impugned judgment of refusal or maintenance to the Petitioner No. 2 Final Result : Allowed