1. There is not much force in this second appeal, though on the short question involved in the case the courts below have expressed divergent opinions. The appellant brought the suit for a declaration that the respondent was not his legally wedded wife and consequently, the child born in the union was not also his child. The courts below have concurrently found that the appellant (a Mohamedan) married the respondent as his third wife, lived with her for about 7 years and also had a child. That concurrent finding cannot be seriously questioned in second appeal; and I confirm that finding.

2. The trial court has held further that though the appellant married the respondent, it was a fasid or irregular marriage, so that the respondent was not the wife of the appellant and that the child was not his child. The reason given by the Munsiff for holding that the marriage was irregular is that the respondent, a Shafi virgin girl with no father, grandfather or agnatic male relation alive, could have been given in marriage only by the kazi, which did not take place. On the other hand, the Subordinate Judge has held that the marriage was not an irregular marriage, because Dw. 2 acte