SHIVA PRASAD RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) This revision application is filed against the order dated 02.09.2008 in Maintenance Case No. 35 of 1991 passed by the leaned Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar.

(3.) Some of the facts are admitted in the case that Opposite Paity No. 2 married to this petitioner long back. Parties are issueless. Controversy is about Opposite Party No. 2's residing with petitioner for a period of only 15 days. Maintenance was sought from the husband, as he was not maintaining her. That is opposed on the ground of her having no female genital and once that is established, there can be no valid marriage rather marriage will come within the definition of void marriage.