JUDGEMENT Mandhata Singh, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. This revision application is filed against the order dated 02.09.2008 in Maintenance Case No. 35 of 1991 passed by the leaned Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar. 3. Some of the facts are admitted in the case that Opposite Paity No. 2 married to this petitioner long back. Parties are issueless. Controversy is about Opposite Party No. 2s residing with petitioner for a period of only 15 days. Maintenance was sought from the husband, as he was not maintaining her. That is opposed on the ground of her having no female genital and once that is established, there can be no valid marriage rather marriage will come within the definition of void marriage. 4. Matrimonial Case No. 15 of 1994 was filed by this petitioner also for dissolution of the marriage but not succeeded. This much of claim of the husband is denied rather opposed on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2. Thus, it is clear that Opposite Party No. 2 was never maintained by the petitioner, though a whisper is there that Opposite Party No. 2 was earning much more than her need by selling milk having her own house also. Parties adduced evidence and after hearing them, impugned order has been passed directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 750/- per month by way of maintenance to Opposite Party No. 2 with effect from the above filing of the maintenance petition with further observation to deduct the amount of interim maintenance. 5. Legality, correctness and propriety of the same are questioned by filing this revision petition. 6. The legal point only raised here in revision is that opposite party No. 2 is not a woman as having no female genital. On that point oral witnesses are there as well as a report from Medical Board. Save and except statement of wife and husband, rest of the oral witnesses have been found of no relevance on the point of status of Opposite Party No. 2 as may have no knowledge about the private genital of any of them. On that point oral witnesses are there as well as a report from Medical Board. Save and except statement of wife and husband, rest of the oral witnesses have been found of no relevance on the point of status of Opposite Party No. 2 as may have no knowledge about the private genital of any of them. Wife and husband are stating in corroboration of their claim and counter claim but medical repot is there that is exhibited in the case even in absence of examination of the Doctor rightly on the ground that report was sought at the instance petitioners husband. He relied upon the same as well by Opposite party No. 2 and that is clear to the effect that every female organ was there to Opposite Party No. 2, though uterus and coitus were absent. Further, rightly has been observed that absence of both the organs may be taken as non-capability to conceive and give birth to a child and she may be termed as sterile women but never eunuch (Hijra). 7. Other aspects including discussed circumstances are mire elaborately have been discussed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court. There appears no illegality committed by him. So, I find it not a fit case for admission. 8. Accordingly, the revision application is dismissed at the stage of admission it self.