JUDGMENT : V. Gopalaswamy, J. - The opposite party, Adar Dei claiming herself to be the legally married wife of the Petitioner, Bikram ' Bika Parida, alleged that they lived together happily as husband and wife for three years, whereafter the Petitioner started ill-treating her and ultimately drove her out of his house and refused to receive her back and maintain her when she had to file the Misc. Case No. 185 of 1979 before the S. D. J. M., Bhubaneswar u/s 125, Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance from her husband at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. The Petitioner resisted the claim of the opposite party asserting that she was not his legally married wife and never lived with him in his house at any time. After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned S. D. J. M. found that the opposite patty was the legally married wife of the Petitioner and was, therefore, entitled to claim maintenance from him and accordingly passed orders directing the Petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month to the opposite party by his order dated 18-8-1983. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has preferred the present revision. 2. In this context, as in the Court below, the Petitioner contended that the opposite patty is not his legally married wife. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner strongly contended that\ from the material placed on record it cannot be said that the opposite party is the legally married wife of the Petitioner. So, the main point for determination in this revision is, whether the evidence adduced in the case does not justify the finding arrived at by the learned Magistrate that the opposite party is the legally married wife of the Petitioner. 3. Admittedly, by the date of the alleged marriage,between the parties, their respective spouses of their first marriage having died, the Petitioner was a widower and the opposite party was a widow. So the disputed marriage was a case of second marriage for both the parties. The opposite party, besides examining herself as a witness, has examined 7 P.Ws. in support at her case. The Petitioner has examined himself as O. P. W. No. 1. besides examining another witness in support of his plea. 4. The opposite party, Adar Dei, is an illiterate lady and examined herself as p.w. 1. The opposite party, besides examining herself as a witness, has examined 7 P.Ws. in support at her case. The Petitioner has examined himself as O. P. W. No. 1. besides examining another witness in support of his plea. 4. The opposite party, Adar Dei, is an illiterate lady and examined herself as p.w. 1. It is in her evidence that she married' the Petitioner about six years back and that their marriage was solemnised in the presence of a priest, barber and Ors. and that after such marriage the parties lived happily for two years when she gave birth to a son but the child expired after five months. Her evidence discloses that she was subsequently ill-treated by her husband and ultimately was driven out of !:lis house. The evidence of the opposite party that her marriage with the Petitioner was duly solemnised and they lived together happily as husband and wife for two years, when she gave birth to a son through him and that the child survived only for five months could not be shaken in cross-examination. P. ws. 2 and 3 are independent witnesses, who corroborate the version of the opposite party regarding her marriage with the Petitioner and about a son being born out of their wed-lock. P.w.5 is the mother of the opposite party and p.w. 6 is her. brother, and they too depose fully supporting the case of the opposite party. P. w. 7, the watcherman of the village, stated on oath about the parties living together as husband and wife and also about the birth of a son to the opposite party through the Petitioner. P. w. 4 is the Sarpanch of the village and he deposed that the Petitioner had admitted in the Panchayat Meeting that he married the opposite party. The opposite party claiming herself to be the married wife of the Petitioner made a written representation (Ext. 1) to the Panchayatdars of the village, alleging as to how she was cruelly treated by her husband (the Petitioner) and the Sarpanch, p.w. 4 proves the said representation Ext. 1. The evidence of the Sarpanch, p.w. 4 discloses as to how he and the other members of the Panchayat considered her representation and ultimately gave the decision in her favour in writing marked Ext. 2 directing the Petitioner to receive her back. 1. The evidence of the Sarpanch, p.w. 4 discloses as to how he and the other members of the Panchayat considered her representation and ultimately gave the decision in her favour in writing marked Ext. 2 directing the Petitioner to receive her back. Thus, the evidence of p.w. 4 and the recitals in Exts. 1 and 2 reveal that the Panchayatdars of the village received and treated the Petitioner and the opposite party as husband- and wife and such evidence is relevant u/s 50 of the Evidence Act. It is on a careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case that the learned S. D. J. M., found that the opposite party is the legally married wife of the Petitioner. 5. No doubt the Petitioner has denied the factum of his marriage with the opposite party and, therefore, to succeed in her claim for maintenance from the Petitioner, the onus is on the opposite party, who initiated proceedings u/s 125, Criminal Procedure Code to prove satisfactorily that there was a marriage between her and the Petitioner. But then on a careful consideration of the decisions of this Court reported in Saudamini Dei Vs. Bhagirathi Raj Chakradhar Pradhan v, Amali Dei and Anr. 1985 (1) O.L.R. 589 , and Smt. Radha pradhan v. Abhi Pradhan 63 (1987) C.L.T. 628, it is seen that the settled position of law is that Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure provides a swift and summary remedy for providing maintenance to neglected wives, parents and children by compelling the man to perform his moral obligation and that in such a summary proceeding it is not necessary to go into the intricacies of law. u/s 125, Criminal Procedure Code, the proof of marriage need not be so strong or conclusive, as in a prosecution for the offences relating to marriage or in a civil proceeding for divorce. Even the opinion expressed by conduct of persons having special means of knowledge regarding the relationship of the parties, if accepted as reliable, would be sufficient to prove that the parties are married in a proceeding u/s 125, Criminal Procedure Code The provisions of Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, of the new Code were earlier covered by Section 488 of the Old Code. In S. Sethurathinamus case (970) 1 S.C. W. R. 589, the Supreme Court observed that the order passed in an application filed u/s 488, Criminal Procedure Code is a summary order which does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties thereto and that the decision of the Criminal Court that there was a marriage between the parties and that it was a valid manage will not operate as decisive in any civil proceeding between the parties for determining those questions. The said observations of [he Supreme Court reveals the rational for relaxing the standard of proof of marriage in a proceeding u/s 12.5, Criminal Procedure Code, which is meant to prove a summary remedy for providing maintenance and for preventing vagrancy. 6. It is in the evidence of .the opposite party that she came to the house of the Petitioner as Tala Kania and according to the widow re-marriage custom prevalent in her caste, a straw bundle was kept in front of the home of the Petitioner and the marriage was performed on the straw bundle and the Petitioner put bangles on her hand and the Purohit performed the rites and the relatives had a feast. She further stated that the 'Kacha Khadu' in a widow re-marriage is performed between the par ties sitting on a straw bundle. The opposite party's statement that the widow re-marriage was permissible in her caste is not 'disputed. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner challenged the validity of the marriage between the parties on the ground that 'Tala Kania' form of marriage is not an approved form of marriage under the Hindu Law. In this context the following observations of the Supreme Court in Sumitra Devi Vs. Bhikan Choudhary are considered material and relevant and hence quoted below: .... There is no doubt that in order that there may be a valid marriage according to Hindu La w, certain religious rites have to be performed. Invoking the fire and performing Saptapadi around the sacred fire have been considered by this 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.... 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.... In the light of the above quoted observations, when the evidence on record is considered. I find there is nothing in it which creates any doubt regarding the validity of the marriage between the parties. Apart from the positive evidence regarding the factum of a valid marriage, there is other evidence establishing that the parties had lived as husband and wife in the same house for few years and that a son was born to them which: by itself, would create a strong presumption in favour of the validity of marriage between the parties, as the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage. 7. In view of my above discussion on the relevant aspects of the case. I hold agreeing with the finding of the learned Magistrate that the opposite party is the legally married wife of the Petitioner and that she is entitled to maintenance from the Petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case. I find that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned S. D. J. M. at the rate of Rs. 501- per month is quite fair and reasonable. 8. In the result, I find no merit in the revision and the same is, therefore. dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed