JUDGMENT & ORDER : This revisional application is filed challenging judgment and order dated 02.08.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura in Criminal Revision No.1(1) of 2012 whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside order dated 08.12.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sonamura in Misc. Case No.53 of 2009 under Section 125 of CrPC, granting maintenance to the petitioner. 2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji for the petitioner. No representation on behalf of the respondent. 3. The petitioner presented an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate first class, Sonamura seeking direction to the respondent to pay her maintenance @ Rs.2000/- per month claiming to be the wife of the respondent and alleged that the respondent having sufficient means is refusing and neglecting to maintain her. The petitioner stated that she had love affair with the respondent and they had physical relation and as a result she got pregnant. The respondent thereafter married her and took her to matrimonial home. After two or three days the respondent in collusion with his parents administered certain materials (medicine) to the petitioner with a view to terminate her pregnancy and as a result she fell ill and she was admitted in Meleghar Hospital. Thereafter she went to her parent's house and had been living there. The respondent is not paying any maintenance to the petitioner even though he has sufficient means. 4. The respondent by filing written statement contested the case contending that there was no love affair and there was no question of any pregnancy of the petitioner and that there was no marriage with the petitioner and that they never lived together. 5. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhattacharji has submitted that the petitioner is not required to strictly prove her marriage for the purpose of maintenance. Law does not require that the marriage should be strictly proved. If it is proved that they were living together as husband and wife that is enough to grant maintenance. He has also submitted that the petitioner obtained a duplicate dis-charge certificate from the hospital and that the original dis-charge certificate was retained by the respondent's father. A copy of the duplicate dis-charge certificate is annexed with the revisional application. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhattacharji further submitted that the case has been very callously conducted on behalf of the petitioner. He has also submitted that the petitioner obtained a duplicate dis-charge certificate from the hospital and that the original dis-charge certificate was retained by the respondent's father. A copy of the duplicate dis-charge certificate is annexed with the revisional application. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhattacharji further submitted that the case has been very callously conducted on behalf of the petitioner. While the petitioner had materials those were not placed before the Court and even the priest was not properly examined to prove the marriage. 6. On perusal of the L.C. record I find that the petition seeking maintenance was though filed through a lawyer, but I am at a loss to see the petition that even the date, time and place of marriage have not been mentioned in the petition filed by the lawyer. It is quite surprising that a practicing learned counsel is ignoring even the legal requirement while presenting a petition on behalf of a helpless woman. I am further surprised to see the evidence of PW-4. It is apparent that the witness was very callously and casually examined before the Court and material statements were not brought about the marriage though the witness was produced to prove the marriage. 7. The Magisterial Court allowed maintenance @ Rs.1500/- per month but learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside that order. A Court of law cannot be a silent spectator in a judicial proceeding before it. In case of necessity, the Court should play an active role to ensure substantive justice. In the present case, unfortunately, both the Courts below failed to render substantial justice in a maintenance proceeding. 8. I think, for fair ends of justice, the matter should be remanded back to the learned Magistrate to afford opportunity to both side to submit their pleadings as well as adduce evidence afresh and to decide the matter according to law. 9. The order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class dated 08.12.2011 in Misc Case No.53 of 2009 and the revisional order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 02.08.2012 in Criminal Revision petition No.1(1)2012, both are interfered and set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate/ Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sonamura to decide the matter afresh within three months from today. 10. The case is remanded back to the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate/ Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sonamura to decide the matter afresh within three months from today. 10. The parties will be at liberty to amend their petition/written objection and re-examine/ cross-examine the witnesses already examined and also may adduce fresh evidence (documentary & oral) if they so desire. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate/ Judicial Magistrate, First Class in case of necessity should give proper legal assistance to the petitioner if she is not properly represented by the learned counsel who was on record. 11. The revisional application accordingly stands disposed of. 12. Send back the L.C records along with a copy of this judgment.