S.N.PHUKAN, J. - (1.)THIS is an application under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short, the Code', filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, North Lakhimpur in Misc. Case No. 84/84. The learned trial court allowed the petition of the opposite party filed under Section 125 of the Code allowing her maintenance for the child, but did not allow any maintenance for herself.
(2.)THE opposite party filed the petition alleging, inter alia, that she was married to the petitioner ; they lived together as husband and wife for four months and that as a result of cohabitation a child was born. The petition was opposed by the present petitioner who denied the allegations. He also denied categorically that there was any cohabitation between the parties.
(3.)BEFORE this court Shri J. M. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that on the uncorroborated testimony of the opposite party the trial court came to the finding that the petitioner was the father of the child and as such it is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention the learned Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Bhaskaran v. Kunhipennu, 1960 Cr. L. J. 353. In that case High Court held that 'Magistrate ought not to pass order for maintenance on uncorroborated testimony of mother of child to prove paternity". With respect I agree with the above views that in cases where the paternity of a child of an unmarried woman is denied, it is unsafe to act on the uncorroborated testimony of the woman. I am further of the view that in case of married woman such corroboration is absolutely necessary.
In the instant case the learned trial court did not believe that there was a valid marriage, but came to the finding that the child was born as a result of cohabitation of the parties.

;