JUDGMENT By Court. — Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State as also learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, who had filed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in the Court below, claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltongani, in Misc. Case No.32 of 1999/T.R. No. 1336 of 2007, whereby, the petitioner has been held to be the husband of the opposite party No. 2, having a son from the wedlock and he was directed to make the payment of Rs.800/- per month to the opposite party No.2 for her maintenance. 3. It appears from the impugned order that the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was initiated on the basis of the application filed by the opposite party No.2 herein, wherein she claimed to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. It is stated in the petition that she was married to this petitioner as per Hindu rites and customs about twenty years ago and out of the wedlock, she was blessed with a son who is about 15 years old. It is alleged in the petition that she was subjected to cruelty and torture and ultimately, she was ousted from her matrimonial house. Subsequently, the petitioner married with another lady and he is living with her. She further claimed that she had no means to maintain herself, whereas her husband had sufficient means and accordingly, the application was filed in the Court below, claiming maintenance from the petitioner. 4. The petitioner appeared in the Court below and filed his show-cause, wherein, the marriage between the parties has been denied. The case of the petitioner is that he never married the opposite party No. 2 and had no concern with her. In his show-cause, the petitioner has stated that he was actually married with one Gauri Devi in the year 1964 itself, from whom, the petitioner had three sons and two daughters, aged between 10 years to 35 years. The petitioner himself is aged about 70 years, leading a retired life. After the death of his first wife, the petitioner married another lady namely, Parwati Gupta, from whom also, one son and one daughter were born. The petitioner himself is aged about 70 years, leading a retired life. After the death of his first wife, the petitioner married another lady namely, Parwati Gupta, from whom also, one son and one daughter were born. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the opposite party No. 2 was married with another man namely, Rameshwar Sao, son of Ram Chandra Sao, and accordingly, the very marriage between the parties was denied. 5. It appears from the impugned order that five witnesses were examined on behalf of opposite party No.2, Meena Devi who was the petitioner in the Court below, including herself, whereas, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner. The witnesses examined on behalf of Meena Devi, have stated about the marriage between the parties and the birth of the son from the wedlock, whereas, the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner have denied the marriage between the parties and have also deposed that Meena Devi was married to another man. 6. The Court below on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, formulated the points for decision, one of the points being, whether the parties were legally married for examining this issue, the Court below has taken into consideration mainly the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of Meena Devi who have supported the case of Meena Devi, stating that the parties were married about 20-22 years back. 7. In this context, I have also gone through the record. From perusal of the record, it appears that in the application filed by Meena Devi for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, there is no mention of any earlier marriage of the petitioner, rather the application has been tiled as if she was the first wife of the petitioner, alleging that the marriage had taken place between the parties about twenty years ago and out of the wedlock, one son was born and subsequently, she was turned out from her matrimonial house and the petitioner had married with another lady. From the evidence adduced by Meena Devi in the Court below, it appears that she herself was examined as A.W. 1 and in her cross-examination she has admitted about the first marriage of the petitioner and has stated that she was married to the petitioner after the death of his first wife, Gauri Devi, from whom, the petitioner had five issues. She did not, remember the date and year of her marriage, but she has stated that the marriage had taken place about 20-22 years ago and at the time of her marriage, her mother was alive and her father was already dead. She has also stated that her marriage was arranged by her mother and her brother, Triveni Sao. This Triveni Sao has not been examined in this case. It also appears from her evidence that she has stated in her cross-examination that her father had died about twelve years ago and her mother had died about eight years ago. This clearly belies the statement of the witness, who claimed that her marriage was performed with the petitioner about 20-25 years ago and at that time, her father was already dead. This witness has also admitted in her cross-examination that she did not remember who was the priest in performing her marriage. On this point, another witness A.W. 2 Kuldip Bhuian has been examined on behalf of Meena Devi in the Court below who has stated that the name of the priest who performed the marriage was Braj Kishore Pandit. Again, A.W. 3 has been examined on behalf of Meena Devi, who is Radha Krishna Mishra and he has claimed to be the priest who performed the marriage between the parties, claiming himself to be the family priest of Meena Devi. Yet again, A.W. 5 Hazari Sao, the uncle of Meena Devi, has admitted in his cross-examination that the priest who had performed the marriage was already dead. 8. The aforesaid contradictions in the evidence on the point of marriage, in my considered view, are material contradictions and the testimony of the witnesses on this point cannot be relied upon. I am of the considered opinion that the Opposite Party No.2, Meena Devi has miserably failed to prove the marriage between the parties in the Court below. 9. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner was married to Gauri Devi, with whom, he has five issues and after the death of Gauri Devi, he had married another lady, with whom also, he has two issues. The petitioner has examined himself as O.P.W. 4, wherein, he has stated that his first wife died in the year 1985 and he married another lady in the year 1986. The petitioner has examined himself as O.P.W. 4, wherein, he has stated that his first wife died in the year 1985 and he married another lady in the year 1986. This witness had not been cross-examined on this point at all. In that view of the matter, if the first wife of the petitioner was alive in or about the year 1978-79, there was no question of marriage between the petitioner and Meena Devi, which is the period of marriage between the parties as claimed by Meena Devi. 10. In view of the aforementioned discussions, I find that the opposite party No.2 Meena Devi has miserably failed to prove the marriage between the parties and accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Court below, finding that there was valid marriage between the parties and directing the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 800/- per month to the opposite party No.2, Meena Devi for her maintenance, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 11. As such, the impugned order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Misc. Case No. 32 of 1999/T.R. No. 1336 of 2007, is hereby, set aside. This application is accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith.