JUDGMENT : I. Mahanty, J. - This revision u/s 401 read with 397 Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the Petitioner seeking to challenge the Order Dated 29.6.2002 passed by the Learned S.D.J.M.,Karanjia in C.M.C. No. 45 of 2001 directing payment of Rs. 480 as monthly maintenance to the Opp. Party-wife from the date of application. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has sought to challenge the impugned order by stating that the Trial Court was in error in holding that a valid marriage subsists between the present Petitioner (husband) and the Opp. Party (wife). He submitted that the claim of the wife is untrue for three reasons - (i) the Petitioner is Bengali by caste whereas the Opp.Party is Oriya Brahmin and although marriage is not restricted between inter-castes, yet generally Bengali people are not contracting marriage with Oriya Brahmin, (ii) the family members of the Petitioner have not accepted the Opp.Party as the really married wife of the Petitioner as the Petitioner did not keep any physical relation with the Opp. Party and (iii) P.W.2 was not the regular Purohit of the Petitioner and the said witness claims that he performed the marriage on the request of the regular Purohit, namely, Ram Chandra Hota. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Petitioner married one Sipra Banarjee in the year 1991 and though he was separated from her in the year 1993 and obtained a decree of divorce in the year 1996, yet at the behest of the well-wishers, he was re-united with the said Sipra Banarjee through compromise. It was further submitted that the father & mother of the said Sipra Banarjee have given their evidence & therefore, since the Petitioner has a valid legal marriage with said Sipra Banarjee, the present Opp. Party- Padmabati Banarjee could not be taken to be the legally married wife of the Petitioner. 3. None appeared for the Opp. Party at the time of call. 4. I have perused the impugned judgment and the lower Court and from the same, I find that the present Petitioner had records originally filed a written statement before the Trial Court on 15.12.2001. In the said written statement, no averment was made by him of his erstwhile wife- Sipra Banarjee. Party at the time of call. 4. I have perused the impugned judgment and the lower Court and from the same, I find that the present Petitioner had records originally filed a written statement before the Trial Court on 15.12.2001. In the said written statement, no averment was made by him of his erstwhile wife- Sipra Banarjee. It appears that the Petitioner completely amended his written statement on 23..5.2002 introducing the fact of pre-existing marriage along with the evidence of such marriage i.e. the voter list. 5. I am completely in agreement with the view expressed by the Learned S.D.J.M. to the effect that the story of pre-existing marriage is clearly an after-thought since on the date on which the Petitioner filed his written statement for the first time, he had no knowledge of any pre-existing marriage. The aforesaid plea raised by the Petitioner does not deserve any further consideration since admittedly the Petitioner had obtained a decree of divorce in the year 1996 against the said Sipra Banarjee. Further, admittedly, the said decree has not been set aside and remains valid and binding in law. Therefore, during the subsistence of a decree of divorce, the plea of re-union to avoid the second marriage, cannot be accepted. Therefore, both, the voter list and the so called agreement with the first wife to have a re-union have no help to the Petitioner. The plea that since the Petitioner is a Bengali Brahmin and the Opp. Party is an Oriya Brahmin, there cannot be a marriage between the Petitioner and the Opp. Party, is unbelievable. Such social taboos are now unconstitutional and therefore, inter-caste marriages, now a days, are very common. Further, non-acceptance of the Opp. Party as the daughter-in-law by the parents of the Petitioner is once again of no consequence in so far as the issue of marriage is concerned. Apart from that the Opp. Party had led evidence of the people who conducted the marriage ceremony i.e. the Purohit as well as the evidence of the persons who attended the marriage between the Petitioner and the Opp. Party. Such evidence has been accepted by the Trial Court as adequate for the purpose of the fact that the Opp. Party had legal marriage with the Petitioner. Therefore, in view of the above, the aforesaid pleas raised by the Petitioner are of no consequence and are hereby rejected. 6. Party. Such evidence has been accepted by the Trial Court as adequate for the purpose of the fact that the Opp. Party had legal marriage with the Petitioner. Therefore, in view of the above, the aforesaid pleas raised by the Petitioner are of no consequence and are hereby rejected. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that since no evidence was led by the Opp. Party in so far as the financial ability of the Petitioner is concerned, no award of interim maintenance u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure could have been passed. 7. Before the Trial Court the Opp. Party had led evidence to the effect that the father of the Petitioner is a businessman with whom the Petitioner works and therefore, the direction of the Learned S.D.J.M. to pay a paltry amount of Rs. 480 per month will fairly meet the basic needs of the Opp. Party and therefore, the Trial Court having come to a conclusion that the Opp. Party is the wife of the Petitioner and the Petitioner is consequently in lawful obligation to ensure welfare of his wife and is liable to pay maintenance to his wife. 8. In view of the observations made above, the criminal revision is dismissed and the order of the Learned S.D.J.M. is affirmed. 9. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed