ORDER The respondent herein filed the petition under Section 488, Criminal P.C. against the petitioner herein for maintenance. She alleged that she is the wife of the petitioner herein, that the petitioner herein is neglecting to maintain her and he married one Keshar and that his income is Rs. 500/- per month. The petitioner herein opposed the petition. In his counter he stated that the allegations in the petition were incorrect and he was ready to maintain the respondent herein. The learned First Class Magistrate, Daman, after inquiry held that the respondent herein is the wife of the petitioner herein, that the petitioner herein was neglecting to maintain the respondent herein and he had married Keshar and that the respondent herein was entitled to get maintenance at Rs. 100/- per month from the petitioner herein. Against the order of the learned Magistrate the petitioner herein filed revision petition in Sessions Court at Panaji. The learned Sessions Judge has recommended to quash the order of the learned Magistrate stating that the respondent herein failed to prove that she was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein. He is of the opinion that under the Portuguese Law the marriage can be valid only if it has been registered in Registration Office and that as the marriage between the respondent herein and the petitioner herein has not been registered so there was no valid marriage and the petition under Section 488, Criminal P.C. was not maintainable. 2. I have heard the arguments of the learned advocate appearing for the revision petitioner. The counter filed by the petitioner herein in the Magistrate's court was read before me. In it the petitioner herein nowhere stated that the respondent herein was not his legally wedded wife. He denied the allegations in the petition filed by the respondent herein generally and stated that he was ready to maintain the respondent herein. The decision in 'Satish Chandra Sen Gupta v. Smt. Charu Bala Sen Gupta', AIR 1962 Tripura 61 was cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner in support of the contention of the petitioner that where marriage can be celebrated only by registering the marriage in Registration Office and the registration certificate has not been filed, the court will have to hold that there was no valid marriage. That ruling is applicable if the husband had denied the marriage. That ruling is applicable if the husband had denied the marriage. In this case the husband did not deny the marriage specifically in his counter. Madras High Court in 'A. T. Lakshmi Ambalam v. Andiammal', AIR 1938 Mad 66 has held as follows :- "The High Court will be very loath to interfere with a finding of fact as to whether there was a valid marriage between the parties, for the party aggrieved by the finding may always file a suit. But the High Court must interfere, if the Magistrate awards maintenance to a woman and does not justify his action by a definite finding that she is the wife of the person ordered to pay her maintenance. For, only legally married women are entitled to maintenance." In this case the learned Magistrate has given a clear finding that there was valid marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent. When it is so and when in the counter the revision petitioner herein did not state specifically that there was no valid marriage between him and the respondent herein, it is not for the criminal court to decide whether there was a valid marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent. If the revision petitioner is of the opinion that the marriage is not valid he can file a suit and have his rights established. I am unable to accept the reference. 3. One of the grounds raised by the revision petitioner in his petition filed in the Sessions Court was that the quantum of maintenance fixed by the learned Magistrate is too high. The income of the revision petitioner even according to the respondent herein is Rs. 500/- per month. The revision petitioner has to maintain in all seven persons including himself and the respondent herein. The revision petitioner did not adduce any evidence to say that his income is not Rs. 500/- per month. Keeping in view the income of the revision petitioner and the persons whom he has to maintain, the learned Magistrate was not correct in directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance at Rupees 100/- per month to the respondent herein. The rate of maintenance should be reduced in the interests of justice. 4. The reference is rejected but the revision petition is allowed in part. The revision petitioner is directed to pay maintenance to the respondent herein at the rate of Rs. The rate of maintenance should be reduced in the interests of justice. 4. The reference is rejected but the revision petition is allowed in part. The revision petitioner is directed to pay maintenance to the respondent herein at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of the filing of the application under Section 488, Criminal P.C. by the respondent herein i.e. 19-5-1969. Order accordingly.