ORDER D.K. Sinha, J. 1. This Cr. Revision application is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka in Cr. Misc. Case No. 24 of 2003/83 of 2003 whereby the petitioner in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was directed to pay maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 2000/- per month to the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 w.e.f. 3.4.2003 and further to pay Rs. 1000/- per month towards the accumulated arrears by the order dated 2.8.2005. 2. The brief fact of the case before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka was that the petitioner/opposite party No. 2 Rojlina Kisku was legally married to the petitioner Anil Besra on 24.6.1999 according to Santhal customs and rituals. After marriage, Rojlina Kisku started living in the house of her husband-petitioner Anil Besra and from their wedlock a son Patras Besra (O.P.No. 3) was born to them on 14.6.2001. After the birth of the child it was alleged that the petitioner/opposite party Anil Besra brought another woman Namita Soren in his house and asked his wife Rojlina Kisku to leave his house. When she refused, she was abused, assaulted, even tortured in various ways and ultimately it was alleged that the petitioner Anil Besra drove his wife Rojlina Kisku out from his house after snatching all her belongings including her Jewellaries and finding no way out, she took shelter along with her son at her fathers house. The petitioner and the members of his family admitted their guilt in Panchayati who undertook in writing and accordingly, Opposite party No. 2 Rojlina Kisku and her son O.P. No. 3 were taken to the house of the petitioner. It was further alleged that after 4/5 days again she was driven out by the petitioner Anil Besra from his house inspite of the request made by the father of the opposite party No. 2 to keep her with humility but to no avail and since then she started living with her son at her parental home. The complainant Rojlina emphatically stated in the complain that no maintenance was given to her or his son by the petitioner Anil Besra and that she had no source of earning. Her father being a poor landless person had no means to maintain her daughter. The complainant Rojlina emphatically stated in the complain that no maintenance was given to her or his son by the petitioner Anil Besra and that she had no source of earning. Her father being a poor landless person had no means to maintain her daughter. On the other hand, it was averred in the petition that the petitioner Anil Besra had about 11 bighas land from which he used to earn about Rs. one lakh per year. Besides, he maintained Marshal Jeep and an Ambassador Car and in this manner the income of the petitioner, Anil Besra was about Rs. 15,000/- per month and therefore, he was quite solvent to maintain his wife and son. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Anil Besra was neither married to opposite party No. 2 Rojlina Kisku nor the opposite party No. 3 Patras Besra was born from their wedlock and therefore, he was not the son of the petitioner. 4. The learned Counsel further submitted that the opposite party No. 2 had brought about a criminal case simultaneously for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioner Anil Besra and the members of his family in which the petitioner along with others was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Against the impugned judgment aforesaid the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 33 of 2004/6 of 2004 which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka on the ground that the factum of his marriage with Rojlina could not be proved hence the charge under Section 498A IPC could not be substantiated. 5. According to the petitioner, the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the back drop of his acquittal in the criminal appeal aforesaid was not maintainable against him and therefore, allowing the proceeding by directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2000/- per month to the opposite party No. 2 by the impugned order is illegal, uncalled for and is liable to be set aside. As a matter of fact, the learned Counsel submitted, that the petitioner was married to one Namita Soren on 7.5.2000 and he was adopted by his father-in-law Sandhan Soren as "Gharjamai" and since then he was residing with his legally married wife Namita Soren in the house of his father-in-law. As a matter of fact, the learned Counsel submitted, that the petitioner was married to one Namita Soren on 7.5.2000 and he was adopted by his father-in-law Sandhan Soren as "Gharjamai" and since then he was residing with his legally married wife Namita Soren in the house of his father-in-law. In support of that the petitioner filed deed of adoption as "Gharjamai" (Annexure-2). 6. Raising the next point, the learned Counsel submitted that admittedly the parties are Christians and their marriage used to solemnize in Church. But no certificate was produced alleged to be issued by Church in support of the marriage between Anil Besra and Rojlina. On the other hand, certificate(annexure-2) produced on behalf of the petitioner in the proceeding issued by the St. Ritas Church, Shikaripara, indicated that there was no evidence in the record of Church that the petitioner Anil Besra was married to the opposite party No. 2 Rojlina Kisku. The learned Counsel further submitted that the fact that opposite party No. 2 was a teacher in Shikaripara school quite able to maintain herself and her child has been concealed whereas the petitioner Anil Besra was Gharjamai in the house of his father-in-law and was unemployed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner attracted the attention towards the averment made in paragraph 12 of the pleading of Criminal revision at hand and to quote: by the plain reading of the depositions of P.Ws it clearly appears that they were not married; and marriage was never solemnized in Church and the opposite party No. 2 became mother of one child i.e. opposite party No. 2 without her marriage. 7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the present Cr. Rev petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that no illegality has been shown in the order impugned so as to call for interference. According to the Opposite party No. 2, she is legally married wife of the petitioner Anil Besra and in support of that four witnesses were produced who proved the marriage between the parties. As a matter of fact, Rojlina Kisku is not a Christain by faith and her marriage with the petitioner Anil Besra was solemnized according to prevailing Santhal customs and rituals and admittedly, not in any church. As a matter of fact, Rojlina Kisku is not a Christain by faith and her marriage with the petitioner Anil Besra was solemnized according to prevailing Santhal customs and rituals and admittedly, not in any church. Therefore, the question of any documentary evidence in church in respect of their marriage does not arise. The opposite party No. 2 has specified 24.6.1999 being the date of her marriage with the petitioner Anil Besra and opposite party No. 3 Patras Besra was born on 14.6.2001 after two years of their wedlock. The defence of the petitioner was that he married only to Namita Soren on 7.5.2000 but this fact could not be substantiated by any certificate of the church and prior to that he married to Rojlina Kisku therefore, subsequent marriage of the petitioner with another lady, if at all, was a nullity in the life time of first wife, having no sanction in the eyes of law. The witnesses produced on behalf of the complainant have claimed consistently having participated in their marriage and that the fact cannot be denied that the petitioner Anil Besra had filed an undertaking at local police station that he would maintain his wife Rojlina and his son properly. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perusal of the impugned order I find that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Dumka had formulated two questions Viz: (i) Whether the petitioner No. 1 Rojlina Kisku is the legally married wife of the opposite party and from their wed lock the petitioner No. 2 Patras Besra was born ? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of reliefs as claimed ? 9. While answering the first question, the learned judge observed in the following manner: On the basis of the discussions made above, I come to this conclusion that P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.w.3 are the persons who attended the marriage of the petitioner No. 1 solemnized with the opposite party. All are the resident of village Dwarpahari where the opposite party resides. P.W.3 is the Pradhan of the said village and be had said that in the marriage of the petitioner No. 1, he participated and saw all the rituals. P.W.4 the petitioner No. 1 herself has supported her case and has said with regard to her marriage with the opposite party. P.W.3 is the Pradhan of the said village and be had said that in the marriage of the petitioner No. 1, he participated and saw all the rituals. P.W.4 the petitioner No. 1 herself has supported her case and has said with regard to her marriage with the opposite party. On the other hand, the witnesses examined on behalf of the opposite party are not consistent to each other. To prove his case, the opposite party ought to have brought cogent evidence on the record that his marriage has not been solemnized with the petitioner No. 1 but, as I have discussed above, the witnesses examined on behalf of the opposite party are persons, whose testimony cannot be relied upon. On the other hand, the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner are consistent with regard to the marriage of the petitioner No. 1 with the opposite party. 10. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the above finding of the court who has answered the first point in affirmative 11. As regards the question No. (ii), I do not find accuracy in the finding of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka with respect to fixation of the maintenance amount for want of any reliable and trust worthy materials. On the other hand the stand of the petitioner Anil Besra was that the opposite party No. 2 Rojlina Kisku was a school teacher in Shikaripara, having sufficient earning to maintain herself as well as her son and this issue on fact could not be adjudicated in the proceeding. For the reasons discussed above, I observe that the maintenance amount which has been fixed at Rs. 2000/- per month against the petitioner Anil Besra cannot sustain. Accordingly, the second part of the impugned order whereby maintenance amount was fixed is set aside by the order with the direction to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka to decide the issue on the material evidence and then to fix the maintenance amount in accordance with law with the mode for payment of arrears provided this issue is decided in affirmative. This revision application is allowed in part in the manner indicated above. I.A. No. 729 of 2007 In view of the above order the I.A. No. 729 of 2007 stands disposed of.