JUDGMENT ;- The petitioner/husband has approached to this Court since he is aggrieved by the Judgment and order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathardi dated 9.3.1999 in Criminal Misc. Application No.63/ 1993, whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to allow the application tiled on behalf of the respondent no. 1/ wife under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and granted maintenance in her favour @ Rs.150/- p. m. from the date of the application i.e. from .17.3.1993 together with the cost of Rs.1 00, and judgment and order passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Revision Application No.138/ 1999 by which the revision filed on behalf of the petitioner/husband was dismissed by the learned Revisional Court. 2. I have heard Shri N.C.Garud, the learned counsel for the petitioner inextenso. Though, respondent no. 1 Latabai is served, nobody appeared on her behalf. I have heard the learned APP Shri Shinde for the Respondent No.2 - State. The basic fabric of the argument of Shri Garud is that, the respondent no.1/wife is not entitled for maintenance u/s 125 of Cr. P.C. since prior to his marriage with respondent no.1, respondent no.1 was married with one Ankush Avhad. In that view of the matter, according to the petitioner. she cannot be termed as legally wedded wife of the petitioner during the subsistence of her first marriage with Ankush Avhad. In order to buttress the said submission, the learned counsel relied upon the certified copy of the proceeding initiated by Ankush Avhad under section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against respondent no.1 and also the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Shevgaon dated 17.12.1993 in RCS No.65/1993 by which a decree of perpetual injunction was granted in favour of the present petitioner. 3. In order to evaluate the submissions of the learned counsel, let us scrutinize the pleadings, evidence and proved documents on record. 4. Respondent No.1 filed an application on 17.3.1993 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class. Pathardi. The said application was under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Said proceeding was registered as Misc. Criminal Application No.63/1993. In the said application, a specific statement and pleading was made to the effect that she married with the petitioner at Mauje Sonosi on 17.6.1991. Pathardi. The said application was under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Said proceeding was registered as Misc. Criminal Application No.63/1993. In the said application, a specific statement and pleading was made to the effect that she married with the petitioner at Mauje Sonosi on 17.6.1991. She has also disclosed that though for first 4-5 months she received good treatment at the hands of the petitioner, however, subsequently, the petitioner has shown his true colour and started causing harassment and ultimately she was driven out from her matrimonial house requiring her to take the shelter of her parental house. She has also pointed out in her pleading that petitioner works as a Truck Driver and he is getting salary of Rs.2, 500/- to Rs.3, 000/- p. m. Besides he owns 5 Acres of irrigated land. 5. On being summoned, the petitioner filed his written statement before the learned Magistrate in the proceeding No.63/1993. The Written statement is at Exh.30 on the record. What is important to note from the written statement is that, the petitioner has not admitted his marriage with respondent no. 1 on 17.6.1991 at Mauje Sonosi as per Hindu rites and custom. He made a claim in the written statement that, prior to his marriage the respondent no. 1 was having illicit relations with Ankush Avhad. If the written statement is minutely scanned and scrutinized some what contradictory stand is taken in the said written statement. At one place, it is the claim of the petitioner that prior to his marriage with respondent no. 1 on 17.6.1991 there was a love marriage between the respondent no. 1 and Ankush Avhad and at the next breath, he submitted in his written statement that prior to his marriage with respondent no. 1 , respondent no. I was having illicit relations with Ankush Avhad. Since the petitioner not only admitted in his pleading about the factum of his marriage with respondent no. 1 at Mauje Sonosi on 17.6.199], but also he has admitted said fact when he entered into the witness box in order to substantiate his claim in the written statement. Thus, both in the pleadings and in the evidence the petitioner has admitted the fact that he married with respondent no.l on 17.6.1991. In that view of the matter, initial burden which was on the shoulder of the respondent no. Thus, both in the pleadings and in the evidence the petitioner has admitted the fact that he married with respondent no.l on 17.6.1991. In that view of the matter, initial burden which was on the shoulder of the respondent no. 1 to prove that she is legally wedded wife of the petitioner stands discharged. Now, once that initial burden was discharged by the respondent no.1, onus was shifted on the shoulder of the petitioner since he claimed that prior to his marriage with respondent no.1, there was a marriage of respondent no.1 with Ankush Avhad. If the entire evidence is properly scrutinized in the light of his pleading in the written statement Exh.30, then there is no iota of proof adduced before the Court to show that the petitioner has discharged the burden which was shifted on his shoulder to prove that prior to 17.6.1991 there was a marriage between respondent no.1 and Ankush Avhad. Sinee the petitioner has failed to discharge said burden in order to prove his case, the claim of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 is not his legally wedded wife has to be necessarily rejected and which is rightly rejected by both the Courts below. 6. In so far as criminal proceeding filed by Ankush is concerned, in the said proceeding, present respondent no. 1 was brought before the Court in the said criminal proceeding. Now there is no evidence adduced by present petitioner that from which place the respondent no. I was produced before the Court in the said Criminal Proceeding initiated by Ankush. Obviously, when those proceedings were initiated by Ankush, the police must have produced the respondent no.1 from the house of the present petitioner. Leave apart said aspect, in the said proceeding, it was specifically stated by respondent no. 1 that she is wife of present petitioner and she is having no concern with said Ankush Avhad. If any statement recorded in the said proceeding of the said person Ankush, those statements are surely not binding on the respondent no. l. Any unilateral claim made by Ankush about his relationship with Respondent No.1 can not be binding on respondent No.1 to dis-entitle her to claim the right of maintenance from the present petitioner especially when there is nothing on record to show that any marriage was performed between Ankush Avhad and Respondent no.1. 7. l. Any unilateral claim made by Ankush about his relationship with Respondent No.1 can not be binding on respondent No.1 to dis-entitle her to claim the right of maintenance from the present petitioner especially when there is nothing on record to show that any marriage was performed between Ankush Avhad and Respondent no.1. 7. In so far as argument of Shri Garud in respect of the decree of perpetual injunction is concerned, it is not helpful to the present petitioner in as much as the said suit was simple suit for permanent injunction without there being any relief of declaration. Further the said suit was decreed ex-parte. So there was no adjudication in between the contesting parties. Further, if really there was no marriage between the petitioner and respondent no. 1, he ought to have sought declaratory decree from the competent Civil Court. 8. Both the Courts below have bestowed their thoughtful consideration to the case as advanced and put forth by the present petitioner before them respectively. Both the Courts on the available material and evidence has rightly reached to the conclusion that respondent no.1 is legally wedded wife of the petitioner. I see no reason to disturb the said con-current findings of fact reached by both the courts below and also on the evaluation of the evidence as brought on record in the maintenance proceeding, as observed in the preceding paragraphs of the present judgment and hence I reject the arguments and claim on behalf of the petitioner that respondent no.\ was not his wife and she is dis-entitle to claim any maintenance. 9. It is not in dispute that, at the relevant time the petitioner was working as Truck Driver and there is no serious dispute about the fact of his income and other agricultural property which he has owned. Learned Trial Court has granted maintenance of Rs.150/- only. There is no reason for this Court to interfere with the quantum which is meager one. Hence, no case is made out for interference. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed.