ORDER H.S. Bedi, J. (Oral) - Sarla Verma petitioner had earlier been married with Chiranjiv Narain Verma, the brother of the respondent, Vinod Kumar. She had four children from him. Chiranjiv Narain Verma dated on 14.7.1986. It is her case that she contacted a Kareva marriage with the respondent, Vinod Kumar, on 15.7.1986. She thereafter filed an application for maintenance against him, claiming that as she was his wife and unable to maintain herself, she was entitled to maintenance. The trial Court awarded a sum of Rs. 400/- per month in all as maintenance to her under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter was thereafter taken in appeal by Vinod Kumar and the order of the trial court was set-aside by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, who held that as there was no evidence of marriage between the parties, the question of the applicability of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not arise. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner herself that she had entered into a Kareva marriage with the respondent and had started living with him as his wife. The Appellate Court appears to be correct, therefore, in holding that as there was no evidence of a valid marriage of the petitioner with respondent Vinod Sharma for any evidence or custom under which the marriage had been performed, the factum of marriage had not been proved. To my mind, this finding appears to be correct. 4. Mr. S.C. Chhabra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also pointed out that the respondent had taken no steps whatsoever to prove her status as a wife even after the order impugned in the present petition and in the meanwhile Vinod Verma respondent had also got married and had two children and was now working as an Engineer with the ONGC, Chandkhera, Ahmedabad. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.