JUDGMENT

FATHIMA BEEVI, J. - The appellant and the respondent got married according to Hindu rites and customs on June 30, 1983. They lived together until the appellant started complaining of desertion and ill-treatment. She moved the court for maintenance by an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though the claim was resisted on the ground that the appellant is not the legally wedded wife of the respondent who had earlier married one Veeramma, the learned Magistrate awarded a monthly maintenance of Rs. 400 holding that the first marriage has not been proved. The order was, however, set aside by the High Court in revision accepting the plea that the first marriage was subsisting when the respondent married the appellant.

2. We have granted special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court. We have been taken through the pleadings and the evidence by the learned counsel for the appellant for the purpose of satisfying that the High Court had no material before it for arriving at the finding that there was a valid marriage between Veeramma and the respondent on the day the respondent married the appellant. It is pointed out that the appellant had