JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jajpur rejecting her petition u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code of Criminal Procedure for short). 2. The case of the Petitioner in brief is that she was married to the opposite party according to custom inside the Biraja Temple of Jajpur in the presence of gentlemen whereafter, both parties lived together as husband and wife. Bitterness of feelings, however, followed for which she was illtreated and was driven out from the matrimonial home. The opposite party refused and neglected to maintain her despite the fact that he owned landed property and he earns Rs. 300/-per month. The Petitioner has prayed for monthly maintenance of Rs. 100/-. 3. The opposite party denied the marriage altogether. He stated that he was still a bachelor and neither married the Petitioner in the Biraja Temple of Jajpur nor lived with her as husband. According to him, the Petitioner is a characterless woman of illrepute and when she conceived, though unmarried, she attempted to trap him finding that he is her sister's husband's brother. He denied his liability to pay maintenance to the Petitioner. 4. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate found that the Petitioner did not prove the factum of marriage. Therefore, he did not grant maintenance and dismissed the petition. 5. Before discussing the evidence in this respect. I would refer to a decision of this Court reported in 54 (1982) C.L.T. 36, Srimati Ghati Dei v. Hemanta Kumar Sahu, in which it was observed that Section 125 provides a swift and summary remedy for providing maintenance to neglected wifes, parents and children by compelling the man to per form his moral obligation and in such a summary proceeding, it is not necessary to go into the intricacies of law involved. Where the man and the woman lived together as husband and wife and were treated as such by the community and the man treated the woman as his wife, for the limited purpose of Section 125, it may be inferred that there was marriage. I would also refer to a decision reported in Sumitra Devi Vs. Bhikan Choudhary in which it was observed that in order that there may be a valid marriage according to Hindu Law, certain religious rites have to be performed. I would also refer to a decision reported in Sumitra Devi Vs. Bhikan Choudhary in which it was observed that in order that there may be a valid marriage according to Hindu Law, certain religious rites have to be performed. Invoking the fire and performing Saptapadi around the sacred fire have been considered by the Supreme Court to be two of the basic requirements for a traditional marriage. It is equally true that there can be a marriage acceptable in law according to customs which do not insist on performance of such rites as referred to above and marriages of this type give rise to legal relationship which law accepts, I give emphasis on the latter part of the observation for the purpose of this case because, according to the pleadings and the evidence, a traditional marriage between the Petitioner and the opposite party was not performed, but the marriage was said to have been performed inside the famous Biraja Temple of Jajpur. Judicial notice can also taken of the fact that valid marriages are also being performed inside temples in several States of the country. Now, therefore, if the Petitioner has been able to prove that she was married to the opposite party in the Biraja Temple of Jajpur, then there shall be no reason why the marriage should not be acceptable in law according to the observation made by the Supreme Court as referred to above. 6. P.W. 1 is the uncle and P.W. 2, is a caste man of the Petitioner who acted as mediator for the marriage. P.W. 3 is a priest or Pujari of the Biraja Temple and P.W. 5 serves as a clerk in the Biraja Temple Administration. P.W. 4 is the Petitioner herself. It will appear from the evidence of all these witnesses that the parties to the marriage and their relations came to the Biraja Temple on 20.5.1980 and enquired from P.W. 3 if the marriage could be performed inside the temple as there was no Lagna on that day. When P.W. 3 answered in the affirmative and agreed to get the marriage performed, payments were made to the Temple Administration by three receipts (Exts. 1, 2 and 3). The Temple Administration clerk (P.W. 5) stated that the marriage fee of Rs. 5/- was received. Thereafter, the marriage in the temple was performed. When P.W. 3 answered in the affirmative and agreed to get the marriage performed, payments were made to the Temple Administration by three receipts (Exts. 1, 2 and 3). The Temple Administration clerk (P.W. 5) stated that the marriage fee of Rs. 5/- was received. Thereafter, the marriage in the temple was performed. After the marriage, the parties went home and lived in the house of the opposite party. As against the aforesaid evidence the opposite party examined five witnesses including himself. All of his witnesses simply denied the fact of marriage. After considering the evidence adduced by both parties, I am of the view that the Petitioner was able to prove her marriage with the opposite party according to custom inside the temple of Biraja at Jajpur on 20.5.1980. 7. According to the averments made in the petition and the evidence of the Petitioner (P.W. 4), a couple of months after the marriage she was illtreated and driven out from the matrimonial home. Her evidence in this respect cannot be disbelieved because, a legally married wife could not in any circumstance voluntarily leave the matrimonial home unless she had compelling reasons to do so and in this case, the compelling reasons were illtreatment and the Petitioner being forcibly driven out. 8. The opposite party is young and able bodied. The family has got some immovable property, Therefore, he should provide the Petitioner with maintenance. Considering the status of the parties and the sources of income of the opposite party, I fix the monthly rate of maintenance at Rs. 50/- only. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed and the impugned order is not aside. It is hereby directed that the opposite party shall pay maintenance to the Petitioner at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month from the date of her application. Final Result : Allowed