Judgment This Rule is directed against an order dated July 28, 1979 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Calcutta in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By that order the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.160/- per month to the opposite party as maintenance allowance and further directed him to pay her a sum of Rs.100/- as costs. 2. The case of the wife-opposite party is that she was married to the petitioner on April 15, 1974 according to Hindu form of marriage and the said marriage was duly registered under section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on October 1, 1974. They thereafter lived as husband and wife and as a result of such marital relation she became pregnant. Under threat and coercion she was compelled by the petitioner to terminate the pregnancy. Since then the relationship between them became strained and the petitioner refused to maintain her and ultimately deserted her and filed a suit for divorce. The petitioner is a man of sufficient means, having various business interests, and his income is Rs.3,000/- per month while she is unable to maintain herself. By filing the application the opposite party claimed a sum of Rs.500/- per month at maintenance allowance from the petitioner. 3. In showing cause against the said application the petitioner denied all the material allegations made therein. His defence is that the marriage was not a legal and valid one and he has challenged the validity of the purported marriage on the around of fraud by filing a matrimonial suit. He emphatically denied that he ever lived with the opposite party as husband and wife and that she conceived thereby. His further case is that after entering appearance in the matrimonial suit, the opposite party has filed the application for maintenance on false and frivolous grounds as a counter-blast. He further stated that he had arranged for a separate flat for her residential purposes and urged upon her to come and live with him but the petitioner had been refusing such offers for reasons best known to her. He lastly contended that he provided her with all the amenities of life till he learnt that he was duped into marriage by suppression of the fact that she was a divorcee. 4. He lastly contended that he provided her with all the amenities of life till he learnt that he was duped into marriage by suppression of the fact that she was a divorcee. 4. Keeping in view the principle laid down by this Court that strict proof of marriage was not necessary in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate considered and discussed the evidence adduced by the parties and held that there was overwhelming evidence to prove the marriage between the parties. He next considered the question whether the petitioner neglected and refused to maintain the opposite party and answered the same in favour of the wife. He lastly took up for consideration the amount of maintenance to be awarded and on discussion of the evidence adduced to prove the income of the petitioner, directed him to pay a sum of Rs.160/- per month towards maintenance of the opposite party. 5. Mr. Saroj Mukherjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner raised three points in support of the Rule. He firstly submitted, that a Hindu lady who has once been divorced cannot enter into a Hindu form of marriage and consequently the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party, which is alleged to have been sole-mnised according to Hindu customs and rites, cannot be a valid and legal marriage. He next contended that even if it was assumed that a Hindu divorcee could re-marry according to Hindu customs and rites, sill then the marriage in the instant case cannot be said to be a valid and legal one as the essential rites of such marriage, viz., Saptopadi and Homa were not performed. He lastly contended that the materials on record do not even prove the factum of marriage. 6. In elaborating his first contention, Mr. Mukherjee submitted that once a Hindu girl was offered for marriage (Sampradan), the could not be again offered for marriage according to Hindu customs and rites. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the opposite party admitted that she was earlier married and the said marriage ended in a divorce and that necessarily meant that there wall an earlier Sampradan. Mr. Mukherjee conceded that a Hindu girl, after her divorce can legally marry under Special Marriage Act, but a marriage of such a girl according to Hindu customs and rites cannot be a valid one. Mr. Mukherjee conceded that a Hindu girl, after her divorce can legally marry under Special Marriage Act, but a marriage of such a girl according to Hindu customs and rites cannot be a valid one. In support of his contention, Mr. Mukherjee relied upon certain passages from 'Manusambita' which ordain that a wise man, having offered her daughter for marriage to one should not again offer her for marriage to another as that would be a sin. 7. In the context of the nature of the proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I find no substance in the first two contentions of Mr. Mukherjee. Unlike a matrimonial proceeding where strict proof of marriage is essential, in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure such standard of proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy. The legislature in its wisdom also made this position abundantly clear by providing in section 50 of the Evidence Act that to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another the Court may entertain the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise has special means of knowledge on the subject; but such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceeding under the Indian Divorce Act or in prosecutions under sections 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Illustration (a) to section 50 of the Evidence Act says:- "The question is, whether A and B were married. The fact that they were usually received and treated by friends as husband and wife, is relevant." 8. In a proceeding of this nature therefore, a Court can conclude that the parties were married relying upon the evidence of persons referred to under section 50 of the Evidence Act. 9. Judged in the light of the provisions of section 50 of the Evidence Act I find that there is sufficient evidence on record to corroborate the evidence of the opposite party and to prove her marriage with the petitioner. The opposite party, besides examining herself, examined seven witnesses. Of there seven witnesses P.W. 2 Dipak Dasgupta, P.W. 3 Anil Kumar Roy Chowdhury and P.W. 6 Dhiren Roy claimed to be relations of the opposite party. The opposite party, besides examining herself, examined seven witnesses. Of there seven witnesses P.W. 2 Dipak Dasgupta, P.W. 3 Anil Kumar Roy Chowdhury and P.W. 6 Dhiren Roy claimed to be relations of the opposite party. They are competent witnesses under section 50 of the Evidence Act and their evidence indicate that the petitioner and the opposite party were treated as husband and wife. Inasmuch as there is nothing on record to disbelieve them, their evidence clearly goes to prove that the petitioner and the opposite party were married. The evidence of the witnesses examined by the petitioner also prove the factum of marriage. His witness Sukanta Ghosh (O.P.W.1) was a witness to the registration of the marriage and admitted in cross-examination that Mohit Babu told him that there was an incident of marriage between them. O.P.W. 2 Nirmal Chakraborty was known to Mohit Babu for nine-ten years and he stated in his examination-in-chief that on the day previous to the day of Mahalaya 1974 a function was held in his house at the instance of Mohit Babu and Mohit Babu told him that as he had married Hena Debi, he was arranging that function. O.P.W. 3 Dipak Kumar Mukherjee, who was known to Mohit Babu since 1955, stated in examination-in-chief that a month prior to Mahalaya 1974, Mohit Babu rang him up and said that he was going to marry and on a day before the Mahalaya of 1974 he happened to be present when Mohit Babu put vermilion on the forehead of Hena. In cross-examination he stated that after the said function he had seen the couple occasionally and that he went to Digha with them. He further admitted that Mohit Babu and Hena Debi lived in one room there. The petitioner (O.P.W.4) in his deposition also admitted that he went through a form of marriage, which according to him was not a valid and legal one, though he denied that they lived together. The last contention of Mr. Mukherjee therefore also fails. In the result the application fails and the Rule is discharged.