JUDGMENT ORDER Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 28.05.2012 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in M.P. Case No. 67 of 2005 by which the application preferred by the opposite party No. 2 under section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 was allowed and the petitioner has been directed to make payment of maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of the opposite party No. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has attacked the impugned order by submitting that there was no valid marriage of the petitioner with the opposite party No. 2 in view of the subsisting marriage of the opposite party No. 2 with one Babu Lal Murmu. Both the parties are governed by Hindu law and therefore the purported divorce based on customary law is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel further submits that the learned court below has drawn an inference about the divorce with Babu Lal Murmu and held that there was a valid marriage solemnized by the opposite party No. 2 with the petitioner. In support of his contention that the opposite party No. 2 is not entitled to any maintenance from the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2005) 3 SCC 636 . 4. Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, leanred counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has referred to Ext. 1 which is the divorce document by stating that the divorce was taken in front of Panchayat which has sufficient evidenciary value and therefore the marriage between the opposite party No. 2 and the petitioner is a valid marriage in the eye of law. Learned counsel further submits that on such context, the learned court below was justified in directing the maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite party No. 2. 5. In view of the submissions which have been advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, lower court records were called for vide order dated 14.11.2017 which is on record. 6. 3,000/- per month to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite party No. 2. 5. In view of the submissions which have been advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, lower court records were called for vide order dated 14.11.2017 which is on record. 6. It appears that an application under section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 was preferred on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 in which she has claimed that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 30.07.2004 at Kurmidih according to Hindu rites and customs. She has further stated that since the petitioner had deserted her and was not provided with maintenance although the petitioner was an employee of SAIL in BSL which ultimately led the opposite party No. 2 to institute a case under section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 The petitioner had also responded to the said application by his show cause in which he had denied that the opposite party No. 2 is his legally married wife. It was further asserted by the petitioner that the opposite party No. 2 had solemnized marriage with Babu Lal Murmu and had a child out of the said wedlock. 7. The learned court below on consideration of the claim made by the respective parties had framed the issue as to whether the opposite party No. 2 is the legally married wife of the petitioner or not. 8. The opposite party No. 2 was examined as P.W. 3 in which she had stated about her earlier marriage with Babu lal Murmu and the same was dissolved on 0109.2002 as per Santhal customs. This witness had proved Ext. 1 which was the document showing dissolution of marriage. The opposite party No. 2 in her evidence had deposed that she is a Hindu and in fact her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner as per Hindu rites and customs. The document showing dissolution of marriage which has been marked as Ext. 1 reveals that the marriage was dissolved in presence of the Panchayat members and witnessed by several persons. The document showing dissolution of marriage which has been marked as Ext. 1 reveals that the marriage was dissolved in presence of the Panchayat members and witnessed by several persons. Although the learned court below had framed an issue as to whether the opposite party No. 2 is the legally married wife of the petitioner or not, but sufficient consideration has not been made with respect to the fact as to whether the opposite party No. 2 is governed by Hindu law and whether the document showing dissolution of marriage between the opposite party No. 2 and Babu Lal Murmu is legally tenable evidence or not . The learned court below has merely stated that the marriage was dissolved by social arrangement without considering the fact as to whether it was permissible in the eye of law and whether it was a nullity in the eye of law. 9. In the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat and others (supra) reported in (2005) 3 SCC 636 it was held that when a plea of subsisting marriage is raised it has to be satisfactorily proved by tendering evidence to substantiate that such person was already married. The petitioner as it appears has produced evidence in support of his contention which has not been refuted in whole by the opposite party No. 2 and no proper appreciation of the claim of the petitioner was made by the learned court below. 10. The issue which has been framed by the learned court below should have been properly decided based on appropriate discussion of the material available on record and merely a document having been proved by the opposite party No. 2 which has been marked as Ext. 1, the same cannot irrefutably establish that the marriage between the opposite party No. 2 and Babu Lal Murmu was validly dissolved. 11. On consideration of the above, the impugned order dated 28.05.2012 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in M.P. Case No. 67 of 2005, is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law on proper appreciation of materials available on record including Ext. 1 which appears to be the fulcrum on which the case of either of the parties rest. 12. 1 which appears to be the fulcrum on which the case of either of the parties rest. 12. The aforesaid exercise should be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 13. This application stands disposed of. 14. Let the L.C.R. be transmitted immediately to the learned court below.