ORDER : The revision petitioner is the respondent in M. C. 9 of 1975 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum. The respondent herein, P. Rajalakshmi Ammal, claiming to be his wife, filed the petition under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month. The parties will hereinafter be referred to according to their rank in M.C. No. 9 of 1975. The facts of the case as disclosed from the materials relied on by the petitioner are given below: 2. The petitioner is the daughter of one Mahadeva Iyer and she was residing with her parents and PW. 4, her brother at Trivandrum. Mahadeva Iyer died in November 1972 leaving his wife, two sons, PW. 2, Ramakrishnan and PW. 4, Veeramani Iyer and the petitioner, his only daughter. PW 2, the brother of the petitioner is employed at Madurai. After the death of Mahadeva Iyer, the petitioner continued to live at Trivandrum with her mother and PW. 4, her brother. She was being looked after by PW. 4, who himself had no regular job. Negotiations were going on regarding the marriage of the petitioner even before the death of her father. The petitioner's mother has six brothers employed in different places. Reference is made in the course of the proceedings to four of them, Subramonia Iyer, who is an Advocate practising at Madras. Viswanathan also employed in Madras, Kanakasabhapathi examined as PW. 3 in the case living at Trivandrum and Ganesh employed in the Railways at Chakta-dharpur near Calcutta. Of the two sisters of the mother, one is at Ceylon and the other, one Radha, is married to Mahadevan of Madras. The maternal uncles mentioned already and Radha who has no daughters of her own were anxious about the well-being of the petitioner. Even prior to the death of the father, uncle Viswanathan had written Ext. P2 letter on 13-11-1971 to PW. 4 suggesting a marriage alliance between the petitioner and the respondent who is none other than his wife's brother. The respondent was then employed in M/S. Indian Oxygen Ltd., at Madras and was living in the house No 6, Rajavelu Mudali Street. Royapuram, Madras along with his sister and brother-in-law. According to the petitioner, negotiations were continued after the death of the rather. Their horoscopes compared favourably. Respondent agreed to marry the petitioner. The respondent was then employed in M/S. Indian Oxygen Ltd., at Madras and was living in the house No 6, Rajavelu Mudali Street. Royapuram, Madras along with his sister and brother-in-law. According to the petitioner, negotiations were continued after the death of the rather. Their horoscopes compared favourably. Respondent agreed to marry the petitioner. In view of her recent bereavement, it was decided that the ceremony of marriage should be simple and moderate. The indigent condition of the petitioner did not permit incurring of much expenditure The uncles at Madras decided to have the marriage ceremony conducted in the house of Subramonia Iyer. The petitioner went to Madras with her brothers, pws 2 and 4 and her uncle, pw. 3, Kanakasabapthy The marriage was conducted according to Hindu rites on 11-2-1972. After the marriage, pws. 2 and 4 left Madras and the petitioner began her residence with the respondent. Her uncle Viswanathan and family moved to another house. For about a year things went on somewhat smoothly. Thereafter the attitude of the respondent towards the petitioner changed and he began to treat her with cruelty. In January, 1974 the respondent turned out the petitioner from his house and she was forced to come back to Trivandrum. Repeated efforts to persuade the respondent to take her back did not succeed. She sent a registered notice through a lawyer to the respondent claiming maintenance. The respondent in his reply, Ext. P1 denied the marriage and even casual acquaintance with the petitioner. He claimed hearsay knowledge that the petitioner was a mentally weak person who had undergone treatment for mental disease. He stated in the notice that he was a happily married man with a six year old son and, therefore, there was no occasion for his marriage with the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate claiming maintenance as stated above. The Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition holding that the marriage bad not been proved. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the order of dismissal. The Additional Sessions Judge, Trivandrum, who disposed of the revision petition set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and allowed the revision petition. The respondent was ordered to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/-per month to the petitioner from 12-3-1975, the date of the petition. The above order is challenged, in this revision petition. 3. The Additional Sessions Judge, Trivandrum, who disposed of the revision petition set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and allowed the revision petition. The respondent was ordered to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/-per month to the petitioner from 12-3-1975, the date of the petition. The above order is challenged, in this revision petition. 3. The main question involved is whether the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge regarding the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is sustainable or whether it is liable to be vacated on the ground that no marriage has been established 4. To prove the marriage, the petitioner examined herself as pw. 1. pws. 2 and 4 are her brothers and pw. 3 is her uncle. Besides the oral evidence, she placed reliance on a scries of letters and other documents which are marked as Exts. P1 to P17. On the side of the respondent, he examined himself as CPW 1. CPW. 2 is S. N. Lakshmi, who claims to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The respondent has also got marked Ext. D1, an identity card issued under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme. 5. pw. 1, the petitioner has given a graphic description of the ceremony of marriage which according to her was conducted from the house of her maternal uncle, Subramonia Iyer. There is no case that the details spoken to by her do not satisfy the requirements of Hindu Law for a legal marriage. Her evidence regarding the fact of marriage is corroborated by the testimony of pws. 2, 3 and 4, her close relations. She has produced a series of inland letters showing the correspondence between her near relatives before and after marriage beginning with Ext P2 which has already been referred to. Exts. P3 to P5 are letters written by Viswanathan to pw 4, before the marriage and in connection thereof. Ext. P5 is a post-card dated 4-2-72 where reference has been made to a money order already sent to pw 4 for meeting the expenses for the journey to Madras. Ext P6 is the portion of the money order coupon meant for sender's communication. Reference is made therein to Ext. P5 letter. Ext. P7 is an inland letter written on 5-2-72 by pw 4 and addressed to pw. 2, informing that the marriage was to take place on 11-2- 72. Ext P6 is the portion of the money order coupon meant for sender's communication. Reference is made therein to Ext. P5 letter. Ext. P7 is an inland letter written on 5-2-72 by pw 4 and addressed to pw. 2, informing that the marriage was to take place on 11-2- 72. The case of the petitioner is that her. brothers and pw. 3 left Madras as soon as the marriage was over, leaving the petitioner in the house of Subraononia Iyer, where the ceremony was conducted and on 14-2-72 she was escorted to the house of the respondent, No 6, Raja-mudali Street, Royapuram by her maternal aunt and others. Exts. P8, P9 and P10 which are inland letters written by Radha, the material aunt, the petitioner and Viswanathan the uncle, respectively to pw. 4 refer to the above facts. Ext P12 is a post-card written by the uncle at Chakradharpur expressing his joy over the.conduct of the ceremony. Exts. P13 and PI6 are letters written by the petitioner on 28-2-72 and 19-3-72 to pw 4 stating that she was happy in her new home. It has come out that Viswanathan shifted to a new house after the marriage of the petitioner. His address is given it Ext. P16. In Exts P3 and P13, the petitioner has given her address as Rajalakshmi Narayanan, 6, Rajavelu Mudali Street, Royapuram, Madras-13 Narayanan is the name of the respondent. Ext, PI6 was also written from the same house. According to the petitioner, there is a practice of exchange of presents between the son-in-law and the mother-in-law on festive occasions. The respondent sent Rs. 25/- to the mother of the petitioner. Ext. P-14 is the coupon wherein the respondent has written his name under a communication that everybody was doing well, Ext. P15 is a money order receipt acknowledging receipt of Rs. 10/- sent by pw. 4. The money order acknowledgment is signed by Lakshmi, who is a sister of the respondent. Ext. P16 is a letter written by the petitioner. Ext. P11 is a pass-book issued to the petitioner by the Indian Bank, Royapuram Branch. The address given therein is Rajalakshmi Narayanan, No. 6, Rajavelu Mudali Street, Royapuram, Madras. 10/- sent by pw. 4. The money order acknowledgment is signed by Lakshmi, who is a sister of the respondent. Ext. P16 is a letter written by the petitioner. Ext. P11 is a pass-book issued to the petitioner by the Indian Bank, Royapuram Branch. The address given therein is Rajalakshmi Narayanan, No. 6, Rajavelu Mudali Street, Royapuram, Madras. There is no scope for doubt that the documents referred to above consisting of in land letters, post-cards, money order coupons and pass-book are concocted documents and, therefore, they are materials which have strong corroborative value and probabilise the case of solemnisation of marriage spoken to by pws. 1 to 4. 6. On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that the above documents, especially the letters have not been properly proved in the sense that the persons who sent the letters have not been examined. But pw. 4 to whom the letters are addressed in the majority of the cases has proved the receipt of the letters. The letters written by the petitioner are proved by herself. C pw. I has admitted that Exts. P3 and P10 letters are written by Viswanathan. Ext. P3 was written before the marriage and Ext. P10 was written after the marriage These two letters probabilise the marriage spoken to by pws. 1 to 4. It is also admitted by the respondent that he has been residing at No. 6, Rajavelu Mudali Street, Royapuram, Madras. 7. The next criticism levelled against the petitioner is the non-examination of Viswanathan and Subramonia Iyer. No doubt, these persons could have thrown more light into the matter Their non-examination may be because being the residents of Madras and close relatives of the respondent, they did not want to incur his displeasure. At any rate, if there are sufficient materials in proof of the marriage, the non-examination of the uncles of the petitioner or other persons who attended the function will not stand in the way of the court in entering a finding in favour of the petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge's finding that there was a ceremony of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, is therefore in order. 8. The respondent would then contend that in order to enable the petitioner to receive maintenance under S.125 Cr. P. C., it is not enough that a ceremony of marriage is proved. The learned Additional Sessions Judge's finding that there was a ceremony of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, is therefore in order. 8. The respondent would then contend that in order to enable the petitioner to receive maintenance under S.125 Cr. P. C., it is not enough that a ceremony of marriage is proved. It should also be proved that the petitioner is the "lawfully wedded wife of the respondent. The argument is that if the respondent bad married CPw. 2 prior to 11-2-1972, he could not have in law contracted another marriage with the petitioner. 9. There is no scope for doubt that S, 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers right of maintenance only on a wife connoting thereby a woman legally married to the person against whom the claim is made. The conditions for a Hindu marriage are laid down in S.5 of the Hindu Marriages Act, 1955. The ceremonies are mentioned in S.7 of the Act. The general trend of judicial decisions is that as the proceedings under S.125 are of a summary nature, courts should not insist on a high standard of proof in respect of the marriage set up by claimants in such proceedings. Therefore, it stands to reason that once it is proved that the man and the woman concerned underwent the ceremony of marriage, a legal marriage can be presumed unless it is made out that one or more of the conditions mentioned in S.5 of the Hindu Marriages Act do not exist. A scrutiny of the conditions shows that they are all negative in character. For example, condition (1) is that neither party should have a spouse living at the time of marriage. In the usual course, the burden of proving that a party to a marriage had a spouse living at the time of marriage is on the person who sets up such a case. In other words, a person who challenges the validity of marriage solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies has to prove the non-existence of the conditions or existence of one or more of the invalidating circumstances mentioned in S.5. Thus in proof of the non-existence of condition (1), it should be established that at the time when the ceremonies were conducted one of the parties to the marriage had a spouse living. Thus in proof of the non-existence of condition (1), it should be established that at the time when the ceremonies were conducted one of the parties to the marriage had a spouse living. The word 'spouse' in the context it is used can have reference only to a person lawfully wedded to to the party concerned. Therefore, in order to disentitle, a woman who has undergone the ceremony of marriage with a man, it should be proved that there was a legal marriage between either of the parties to the ceremony and another person which was subsisting at the time of such solemnization. 10. In the instant case, the respondent, as CPw. 1, and CPw. 2, the person who claims to be his legally wedded wife speak that they got married according to customary rites on 5-6-1966 and that they have a son who was eight years old in 1976 (when they were examined). There are no other witnesses or other documentary evidence forthcoming to prove either the marriage in 1966 or the birth of the child in 1968. The only document produced on the side of the respondent is Ext. D1, a card issued to the respondent by the Assistant Regional Director, E. S. I. Corporation. In Ext. D1, in the column relating to members of the family, the name Lakshi is mentioned as wile. The card looks brand-new. There is no evidence when it was issued. The respondent relies on the date 28-4-69 noted, in the card. There is no evidence as to who put the date. If, as is suggested by the respondent, the card was issued in 1969, the re was no reason why the name of the son who, going by the age mentioned, was born in 1968 was not included. No reliance can be placed on Ext D1. 11. Both the respondent and CPW. 2 would say that they were residing in house No. 6, Rajavelu Mudali Street, Royopuram ever since their marriage. There is no document or other oral evidence to substantiate the claim. CPW. 2 admitted in her evidence that she has no ration card to show residence in the above house. Neither the voters' list would show that she was residing there. According to CPW. 4 she was not a voter, though she was 43 years old in 1976. It is significant to note that though the respondent mentioned in Ext. CPW. 2 admitted in her evidence that she has no ration card to show residence in the above house. Neither the voters' list would show that she was residing there. According to CPW. 4 she was not a voter, though she was 43 years old in 1976. It is significant to note that though the respondent mentioned in Ext. P1 his reply notice that he was a happily married man, the name of the wife is not mentioned therein or in the objection. In the course of the hearing, reference was made to the existence of certain photographs taken at the time of the marriage between the respondent and CPW. 2. These were not marked due to want of proper proof. Assuming that there are photographs, there is no evidence when they were taken. They may not be sufficient to show that the marriage was in 1966 and was subsisting in 1972. Neither does birth of a child raise a presumption that the child was conceived following a valid marriage between the man and the woman. 12. Reliance was placed by the respondent on certain admissions made by the petitioner in answer to questions put to her in the course of her cross-examination that the respondent has a wife and a six year old child. But in the subsequent evidence rendered by her, she has explained the source of her knowledge and stated that it was from the reply no ice that she gathered the information. Even otherwise, admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted (S e S.31 of the Indian Evidence Act). 13. As already stated, the respondent has admitted that Exts. P3 and P10 were written by his brother-in-law, Viswanathan. There is also evidence thai Viswanathan was residing with the respondent. Ext. P3 appears to be written when Viswanathan was residing in the house No. 6, Rajavelu Mudali Street. It is unlikely that he would have taken the initiative in arranging a marriage between the respondent and his own neice if in fact the respondent was legally wedded to CPW. 2 in January 1972. The respondent would say that himself and his brother-in-law were not on good terms; but he would also say that the strained relationship began by December, 1972. This means that there was no lack of cordiality in January, 1972 when the alleged marriage of the petitioner took place. 2 in January 1972. The respondent would say that himself and his brother-in-law were not on good terms; but he would also say that the strained relationship began by December, 1972. This means that there was no lack of cordiality in January, 1972 when the alleged marriage of the petitioner took place. If the relationship got strained only in December, 1972, the reason could as well be the change in the respondent's treatment towards the petitioner. The discussions aforesaid amply make out the correctness of the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge. The revision petition is dismissed. Dismissed.