JUDGMENT :

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.01.2016 passed in Maintenance Case No. 36 of 2012 by which he has been directed to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to the opposite party no. 1 and Rs. 1000/-per month to the opposite party no. 2 as maintenance allowance, besides Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost.

2. The only plea urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the opposite party no. 1 is not his legally married wife and the opposite party no. 2 is not his daughter.

3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to prove marriage between the parties opposite party no. 1 was required to lead evidence establishing that rituals of marriage were performed. However, on the evidences led by her though the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has found that rituals of marriage were not performed still she and her daughter are held entitled for monthly maintenance.

4. In the proceeding of Maintenance Case No. 36 of 2012, the petitioner has examined four witnesses and the opposite party no. 1, who was the applicant no. 1 in the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has examined five witnesses. P.W. 1 is father of Ghurni Orain, the ap