Indira Shah, J.

1. By filing this Revision Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.09.2013 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar in MR Case No. 99/2008, allowing the petition filed by the opposite party claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and thereby directing the petitioner to pay a maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month w.e.f. the date of the judgment and also to pay litigation cost of Rs. 1000/- to the opposite party under Section 126(3) of the Code. The opposite party claiming herself wife of the petitioner, filed a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and initially a monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000/- was allowed. The petitioner approached this Court by filing Criminal Revision Petition No. 33 of 2011 and this Court vide order dated 31.01.2012 set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court and remanded back the matter with a direction to decide the case afresh giving opportunity to both the parties to lead additional evidence with regard to solemnization of marriage between the parties. Accordingly, both the parties adduced evidence and on completion of enquiry under Section 125 Cr. P.C., the trial Court held that the opposite party is legally married wife of the petitioner, she is unable to maintain herself, the petitioner/husband has neglected and failed to maintain her and awarded maintenance of Rs. 4000/- in favour of the opposite party, as stated earlier.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had denied the opposite party as his legally married wife and there was no relationship between the petitioner and the opposite party at any point of time. The petitioner by adducing evidence and additional evidence successfully proved that the opposite party is not his married wife on the contrary opposite party failed to prove her marriage with the petitioner and yet the impugned judgment allowing maintenance to the petitioner has been passed.

3. The opposite party, as first party, in the 125 proceeding avermed that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized 33 years back as per the Hindu law and customs. Both the parties lead conjugal life and out of their wedlock three children were born. The petitioner herein after getting his employment in the Railway Department started harassing and torturing the opposite party thereafter he married for second time with one Usha Das who however, died on 21.02.1998. She (Pratima) being expelled from house of the petitioner along with her children, she took shelter in her father's house and was earning her livelihood by doing petty business. In the meantime, the petitioner brought one Sumitra Das and kept her as his mistress. The father of the opposite party expired and her brothers are not providing her sufficient maintenance. The opposite party herself became incapable to earn her livelihood due to her serious illness. She alleged that the monthly income of the petitioner/husband from his salary is Rs. 10,000/- and she claimed an amount of Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance.

4. The petitioner, herein, contested the claim by filing his written statement contending inter alia that the maintenance petition is not maintainable. He denied all the allegations made by the opposite party. He denied that the opposite party is his legally married wife and there she was not unable to claim any maintenance.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner as PW - 1 on 30.09.2010 deposed before the trial Court and she disclose her age as 45 years. She produced a voter list of the year 1977 wherein name of her husband had been mentioned as Subud Das. If she was aged about 45 years in the year 2010 she was not eligible to cast her vote being minor in the year 1977, whereas her age has been shown as 27 years in the voter list.

6. Maya Mazumdar stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 1975-76. Similarly PW - 3 Deepak Das stated t