IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.887 of 2005 BIBI TARANA @ TARANA Versus STATE OF BIHRA & ANR ----------- 5. 13.08.08. This revision application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 7. 9. 2005 passed by Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur, in Miscellaneous Case No. 3/2000 whereby and whereunder the learned Judge has rejected the application of maintenance filed under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The case of the petitioner is that she was married with Opposite Party No.2 on 16. 12. 1990. Thereafter, two daughters were born out of their wedlock. However, after three years of marriage, Opposite Party No. 2 divorced the petitioner and solemnised second marriage. Elder daughter remained with Opposite Party No.2 and younger daughter, namely, Khushnama aged about five years, is living with the petitioner. The petitioner filed this case under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance for her minor daughter Khushnama. Opposite Party did not file any show cause. During inquiry, the petitioner examined four witnesses in support of her claim, but no witness was examined on behalf of Opposite Party No.2. However in cross-examination, he challenged the birth of Khushnama during subsistence of their marriage. Learned Judge has refused to grant maintenance on the ground of non-production of document regarding date of birth of 2 Khushnama. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order in question both in law as well as on facts. It is submitted that the grant of interim maintenance was challenged by the O.P.No.2 on the ground of legitimacy of the child (Khushnama) but the same was rejected and hence now the that O.P.2 has no right to re-agitate the same matter again. It is further submitted that there is sufficient evidence on the record to show that Khushnama was born out of their wedlock. On the other hand, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 supported the impugned order in question and has submitted that the petitioner has failed to show that the child in question was actually born out of their wedlock and, hence, the court below has rightly rejected the petition for maintenance. The marriage between the parties is admitted. The petitioner has alleged that Khushnama was born before divorce. This assertion was not denied by filing any show cause. The petitioner also gave oral evidence in support of her case. No witness was examined by the Opposite Party No.2 denying the assertion of the petitioner. Thus, the case of the petitioner is practically ex parte. Proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary proceeding which provides speedy remedy to women and children. It does not decide the relationship finally. 3 In the facts and circumstances, this revision is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the court below to decide the matter afresh in the light of the above observation. M. Pal. (Ghanshyam Prasad, J.)