raped her and thereafter, the petitioner brought her with him and they started to live as husband and wife and that their marriage was performed at the Kali Mandir, Bapujinagar and Paglartek Shiv Mandir. Thereafter, the petitioner had married the second wife. This Court is conscious that it is not sitting in appeal. However, a glaring aspect is not found to be addressed by the Enquiry Officer or by the Appellate authority, which is, whether in light of admission by the alleged first wife that she was already married to one Haladhar Rava, is her alleged marriage with the petitioner in two temples can constitute a valid marriage and then a corollary aspect was required to be examined that whether there was any impediment for the petitioner to have married Nilima Nath, alleged to be his second wife. Moreover, a categorical finding has been given by the Enquiry Officer that marriage of the petitioner and Punu Rani Rabha was not performed in accordance with any social ritual or Court marriage process, nonetheless, even in light of the said finding, the Enquiry Officer has not addressed that how the marriage of the petitioner and the alleged first wife would have constituted a valid marriage. Therefore, it appears that the Enquiry Officer was pre-determined that the first marriage of the petitioner was a valid and subsisting marriage and, as such, the said authority failed to appreciate the admission by the alleged first wife that she was already married.
