- (1.) S. K. Agarwal, J. No one is present to press this revision on behalf of applicant Sukh Lal.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and the learned A. G. A. I have perused the judgment of the family Court by which the two children of opposite party No. 1 were granted main tenance at the rate of ISO/- per month from the date of application. I have also perused the grounds of revision. It has come into evidence of the witnesses which are four in number ex amined on behalf of opposite party. Be sides her she has examined her father, maternal grandfather and a resident of the locality of the applicant Ram Samujh. Ram Samujh is an independent witnesses. He has stated clearly in his deposition in Court that he carried the marriage party of Sukhlal to the place of marriage in his vehicle as a driver. No serious challenge has been led by the applicant against his evidence on marriage. No notice has been shown against him. The other witness specially the maternal uncle who claims that he was an intermediary in the settlement of that marriage with the applicant of the opposite party. Thus there is clinching evidence with regard to the marriage of opposite party with the applicant no doubt the trial Court has come to the conclusion that since there was no separa tion or divorce effected between the first husband of opposite party No. 2 and her husband Satish her marriage with the ap plicant was not legally sustainable. It was void marriage and ,therefore, the opposite party No. z was not entitled to main tenance. Her application accordingly was not considered, but the trial Court has allowed maintenance to her two children, two daughters. So far as the order is con cerned I do not find any illegality. The applicant has completely failed to prove that he had not entered into marital bond with the opposite party at any point of time. He has challenged the admissibility of the photograph which was accepted by the trial Court. The applicant had ample opportunity to rebut photograph evidence. These are quasi-criminal proceedings and evidence which is un-rebutted if accepted by the trial Court can not be said to suffer from any illegality. The trial Court has given a finding that the applicant had failed to give any satisfac tory reason as to why in the photograph he is sitting by the side of this opposite party alongwith his youngest child, a daughter from first wife in her lapse as well as the sister of opposite party No. 2.
(3.) IN view of these findings and the discussion as already made above the mar riage though void stands fully proved. The lady has lived for 5 years happily in her marital home. The birth of two children is not in any manner to be doubted. IN the circumstances the order does not suffer from any infirmity and is worthy of sus tenance. In the result this revision applica tion is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;