JUDGMENT : 1. As similar grievance is raised in both the revision petition, both are taken up together for disposal by way of this common order. 2. I have heard Mr. J Quadir, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also heard Mr. IH Laskar, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the respondent, Mustt. Rustana Begum Barbhuiya filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. praying for maintenance for herself and the cost of litigation etc. from the present petitioner on 05.10.2005 which was registered as MR Case No.293/2005. It was alleged in the maintenance petition that the respondent is the married wife of the present petitioner and was tortured by demanding dowry and ultimately she had to return to her parental home. According to the present petitioner, he is not the husband of the opposite party and there was no matrimonial relationship between the parties and it is challenged that the said petition was filed only to harsh the petitioner on a concocted story. 4. On the other hand, the opposite party has also filed another CR Case No.454/2005 under Section 498(A)/34 IPC against the present petitioner and the same case was tried by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi and by its order dated 06.08.2007, the learned court acquitted the present petitioner from the charge. Assailing the aforesaid judgment dated 06.08.2007 passed by the trial Court, opposite party preferred the revision petition before the District and Sessions Judge, Hailakandi and the learned court by its order dated 09.07.2009 remanded the said case to the learned trial court for deciding the matter afresh. 5. The present petitioner challenged the order of remand passed by the Sessions Court by way of Criminal Revision Petition before this Court which was registered as Criminal Revision Petition No. 271/209 and this Court vide its order dated 29.07.2009 was pleased to suspend the order dated 09.07.2009 passed by the revisional Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another petition before the court of learned Magistrate where the maintenance case was pending vide MR Case No. 293/2005 to stay the further proceeding till disposal of the Criminal Revision No.271/2009 pending before the Hon’ble High Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another petition before the court of learned Magistrate where the maintenance case was pending vide MR Case No. 293/2005 to stay the further proceeding till disposal of the Criminal Revision No.271/2009 pending before the Hon’ble High Court. The learned trial court vide its order dated 01.12.2009 has stayed the said petition with an observation that the said CR Case that was filed under Section 498(A) is no way connected with the present case relating to maintenance and has fixed the case for cross-examination of the witnesses. Now challenging the aforesaid order dated 01.12.2009 passed in MR Case No. 293/2005, the petitioner has preferred the Criminal Revision Petition No.26/2002 challenging that such an order passed by the learned trial court is bad in law inasmuch as the marital relationship between the parties is not proved and as the earlier CR case under Section 498(A) has already been remanded to decide afresh so till disposal of the said case, further proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not justified. 6. By way of this second revision petition No.271/2009, the petitioner has challenged the remand order dated 09.07.2009 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the impugned order of the learned trial court in CR Case No.454/2005 and also remanded the case to decide a fresh. 5. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties. 6. On perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the learned Sessions Judge appreciated the entire material on record and learned court was of considered view that the learned trial court has hurriedly closed all evidence of the respondent side without giving proper opportunity to the party for cross-examination of the witnesses. With a detail and reason order, the learned revisional court has quashed the final order passed in CR Case No.454/2005 and remand back to the trial court to give a chance to the opposite party to produce her witness for the purpose of cross-examination as three witnesses has already examined. The order itself reflects that there is no any illegality in remanding the case for fair adjudication of the matter. It will be in the interest of both the parties that both the parties should be given chance to adduce proper evidence in support of their case rather than to close avenue from producing evidence on some technical ground. The order itself reflects that there is no any illegality in remanding the case for fair adjudication of the matter. It will be in the interest of both the parties that both the parties should be given chance to adduce proper evidence in support of their case rather than to close avenue from producing evidence on some technical ground. In the considered opinion of this Court, nothing remains to interfere in the matter of remand as has been assailed in the present case. 7. The order dated 01.12.2009 passed in MR Case No.293/2005 also called for no interference inasmuch as the learned trial court has rightly rejected the prayer for stay of the proceeding. It is a settled law in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to be proved in its own procedure. Marriage can be proved or disproved by the parties by adducing requisite evidence not in the strict manner. It is to be noted that the aforesaid maintenance case was at the hearing stage, wherein the present petitioner denied the facts of marriage on his part and he has already filed his written statement. 8. Both the parties thus has to adduce evidence to prove their respective case so that the court can arrive at a finding whether any relief can be granted by invoking the provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or not. There appears no illegality or impropriety in the aforesaid order of the trial court. 9. In the result, for the above reasons and discussions, both the revision petitions stands dismissed and disposed of. 10. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this order.