Judgment :- (1) The present petitioner filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Birbhum at Suri alleging that there was solemnization of marriage according to Hindu rites with the opposite party on 3rd Magh, 1400 B.S. and she lived with the opposite party as his wife and two children were born of the wedlock. After birth of the two children she same to be subjected to ill treatment and torture on demand of money and was driven out on 1st Magh, 1407 B.S. She prayed for maintenance for herself and her two children. (2) The opposite party in the written objection denied having married the petitioner and contended that the petitioner was a maid servant in his house in the year 1999 and she took a loan of Rs. 1200/- from his mother and when repayment of the loan was asked for trouble developed. He was threatened with consequences unless payment of Rs. 20,000/- was made. On 20.2.2001 his house was surrounded by the petitioner and her men for which a criminal case was filed. The children were not of him. (3) The learned Magistrate held that marriage was solemnized and granted maintenance at Rs.1200/- for the petitioner and Rs.800/-each for each of the two children. This order dated 29th September, 2007 was challenged in Criminal Revision and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Birbhum by judgment and order dated 30th June, 2008 negatived the alleged factum of marriage and refused maintenance for the petitioner but affirmed maintenance for each of the two children. (4) The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 30th June, 2008 in Criminal Motion No.43 of 2007 is under challenge in this application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Cr. P. C. (5) The opposite party did not challenge the order of the learned Magistrate or the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby maintenance was granted and affirmed in respect of the two children. (6) The petitioner comes up with this application to contend that the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the solemnization of marriage is not legally tenable. (7) I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and considered the evidence of the witnesses. (6) The petitioner comes up with this application to contend that the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the solemnization of marriage is not legally tenable. (7) I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and considered the evidence of the witnesses. It appears from evidence of the petitioner that her entry into the house of the opposite party was by virtue of her service as maid servant and according to her cross-examination love developed between the parties within a fortnight from the date of her entry into the house of the opposite party. (8) It is the case of the petitioner that after solemnization of marriage on 3rd Magh, 1400 B.S. she started living in the house of the opposite party and two children were born of the wedlock. Now according to her partition which was filed some time in the year of 2001 the son was on date of presentation of the petition 2 and 1/2 years old and the daughter was about 2 years old. In the context of this averment in the petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. it appeared that the son was born in the later part of 1998 or in the first half of 1999 and the daughter was born as per the discharge certificate on 27.12.2000. Therefore, according to Bengali calendar, the son was born some time in the year of 1405 B.S. and the daughter was born sometimes in the year of 1407 B.S. It is not the case of the petitioner that children were born before the solemnization of marriage. Therefore, if according to her the children were born after the marriage then solemnization of marriage cannot take place on 3rd Magh, 1400 B.S. Again, according to her cross-examination, she entered into the house of the petitioner as maid servant 20 years preceding the date of her evidence and she left the house of the opposite party 15 years preceding the date of her deposition. Her deposition was recorded on 15th December, 2004. Her deposition was recorded on 15th December, 2004. So, if she had entered to serve the opposite party as a maid servant 20 years preceding the date of her evidence then such entry happened some time in the year 1984-85 which roughly corresponds to 1391 B.S. If she left the job 15 years preceding the date of her evidence then the date of leaving the house would be around 1396 B.S. It is not her case that during her stay in the house of the opposite party in this period she was married. If she was married on 3rd Magh, 1400 B.S. then the said alleged marriage cannot be reconciled with the period of her stay in the house of the O.P. which would be from 1391 B.S. to 1396 B.S. Again, birth of first child in 1998-99 (1405 B.S) and the birth of the second child on 27.12.2000 (1407 B.S) before her alleged marriage in Magh 1400 B.S. is not her case. Further her own witness P.W.4, Bijli Birbanshi who resides at a distance of 10 cubits from the house of the petitioner says that marriage took place some 10 years ago. The date of recording of evidence of this witness was 12th July, 2005, which means marriage was solemnized some time in the year of 1995 which corresponds to the Bengal calendar year of 1402 B.S., which is not the case of the petitioner nor her evidence. Therefore, the plea of marriage on 3rd Magh, 1400 B.S. can hardly be believed. (9) There is a second aspect of the matter. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the wife has to be a legally married wife. Though the standard of proof of marriage need not be so high as in a case of bigamy or in a civil proceeding, it has to be proved that the parties went through some form of marriage. What is found here is that there was no solemnization of marriage even according to the evidence of the petitioner. There was held no ritual. There is a Kali temple amidst a jungle in a desolate place behind Rajbari at Hetampur and there in absence of any priest or any barber or without observance of any ritual whatsoever there took place simply an exchange of garlands. There was held no ritual. There is a Kali temple amidst a jungle in a desolate place behind Rajbari at Hetampur and there in absence of any priest or any barber or without observance of any ritual whatsoever there took place simply an exchange of garlands. This exchange of garlands and nothing more admittedly and as per the evidence of the petitioner in the presence of the deity without any ritual cannot constitute a marriage in the eye of law. The petitioner has categorically stated in her cross-examination that besides exchange of garlands no ritual, no event took place. In the premises, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly held that marriage was not proved at all; I do not think that such finding in the context of the above evidence is unsound. (10) The application is dismissed.