JUDGMENT : V. Gopalaswamy, J. - This revision is preferred against the judgment dated 29.3.1984 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panposh at Uditnagar, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 295 of 1981 rejecting the petition filed by the Petitioner u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance for herself and the minor child from the opposite party. 2. the Petitioner's case may be briefly stated thus: The Petitioner Jula Minz is the legally married wife of opposite party Kemet Minz and both are Christians and they were married in December, 1979 and they lived a happy married life and but of their wedlock a daughter was born to them in August, 1981. The opposite party refused to maintain the Petitioner since March, 1981 and even after the daughter was born to the Petitioner, he refused to maintain the Petitioner and the child, when the Petitioner was compelled to file the petition u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The case of the opposite party is that he never came in contact with the Petitioner and so the question of his marriage with her does not arise for consideration. 4. On the finding that the Petitioner failed to prove her marriage with the opposite party and that she lived with him as his wife for one year, the learned Magistrate rejected her petition u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure praying for the maintenance of herself and the child. 5. The Petitioner, besides examining herself as P.W. 1 has also examined two independent witnesses P.Ws. 2 and 3. The opposite party has examined Elias Lakra as O.P.W. 1 and he is the only witness examined on the side of the opposite party. 6. The opposite party has denied the factum of his marriage with the Petitioner and, therefore, to succeed in her claim for maintenance from the opposite party, the onus is on the Petitioner, who initiated proceedings u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, to prove satisfactorily that there was a marriage between her and the opposite party. Admittedly the Petitioner and the opposite party are Christians. The Petitioner as P.W. 1 deposed that she married the opposite party about three years back and the marriage took place at Kapilash Church according to the Christian customs and at the time of their marriage Sandhia (P.W. 3.) and Kalyani (P.W. 2) were also present. Admittedly the Petitioner and the opposite party are Christians. The Petitioner as P.W. 1 deposed that she married the opposite party about three years back and the marriage took place at Kapilash Church according to the Christian customs and at the time of their marriage Sandhia (P.W. 3.) and Kalyani (P.W. 2) were also present. She stated that after her marriage with the opposite party, they lived together as husband and wife and through the opposite party she had given birth to a daughter. Her evidence that she was married to the opposite party and out of their wedlock a daughter was born to her has not been shaken in the cross-examination. P.W. 2 Kalyani Gudia deposed that she along with P.W. 3 were present at the marriage ceremony of the Petitioner with the opposite party which took place in the Kapilash Church. She deposed that after their marriage, they lived as husband and wife for about one year and that a daughter was born but of their wedlock. P.W. 3 Sandhia also deposed that she was present at the time when the marriage of the Petitioner with the opposite party took place in the Kapilash Church. She further deposed that the marriage between the parties was solemnised according to the Christian customs. It is in her evidence that the Petitioner and the opposite party led a married life for a period of about one year and a daughter was born to them out of their wedlock. The Petitioner and P.Ws. 2 and 3 are residents of Kapilash end according to them the marriage had taken place at Kapilash. Nothing substantial was elicited in the cross-examination of P.Ws. 2 and 3 which creates any doubt regarding their testimony that they were present at the time when the marriage ceremony of the Petitioner with the opposite party took place in the Kapilash Church. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 that after their marriage they lived as husband and wife and that out of their wedlock a daughter was born to them is equally convincing. Hence it is seen that the independent witnesses P.Ws. 2 and 3 fully corroborate the version of the Petitioner regarding her marriage with the opposite party and about her living with him as a legally married wife and about the birth of a daughter out of their wedlock. Hence it is seen that the independent witnesses P.Ws. 2 and 3 fully corroborate the version of the Petitioner regarding her marriage with the opposite party and about her living with him as a legally married wife and about the birth of a daughter out of their wedlock. The evidence of P.W. 3 that after his marriage with the Petitioner, the opposite party had given her the photograph taken by him with the Petitioner closely sitting by her side, along with the negative, for getting it enlarged is corroborated by the fact that she produces the photograph and the negative into court and the photograph is marked as Ext. 1. A mere look at the photograph Ext. 1 will convince anyone that the opposite party is a blatant liar when he stated in his counter that the Petitioner was a stranger to him. The photograph Ext. 1 strongly corroborates the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 that the Petitioner is the legally married wife of opposite party and that they lived a married life for about an year. 7. O.P.W. 1 Elias lakra was the only witness examined on the side of the opposite party. Its claims himself to be the Secretary of the Kapilash Church. But the learned Magistrate, on a consideration of his evidence, held that the claim of O.P.W. 1 that he was the Secretary of the Church cannot be accepted as true. After considering his evidence, the learned Magistrate observed, "Thus the evidence of O.P.W. 1 is not at all helpful to O.P." Hence, it is seen that if the evidence of O.P.W. 1 is ignored, there is no other evidence in support of the plea of the opposite party. 8. One of the points that weighed with the learned Magistrate in disbelieving the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 is that P.W. 1 had stated that her marriage was performed by a "Father", whereas P.Ws. 2 and 3 have deposed that her marriage was performed by a "Preacher". P.Ws. 2 and 3 are illiterate Hindu ladies and so it is not expected of them that they would be able to distinguish a ('Christian Preacher' from a 'Christian Father'. 2 and 3 have deposed that her marriage was performed by a "Preacher". P.Ws. 2 and 3 are illiterate Hindu ladies and so it is not expected of them that they would be able to distinguish a ('Christian Preacher' from a 'Christian Father'. Likewise, there was some discrepancy regarding the dress work by the Petitioner at the time of her marriage, whether she were the marriage customs or not and again it is this discrepancy which considerably weighed with the trial court in disbelieving the Petitioner's marriage with the opposite party. As earlier stated, P.Ws. 2 and 3 are illiterate Hindu and were deposing about three years after the performance of the marriage and so their evidence regarding the dress worn by the Petitioner at the time of her marriage should not have weighed with the court in assessing the truth of their evidence regarding the factum of marriage. The opposite party is a resident of the same area Biramitrapur. From the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 it is seen that their houses are close to the house of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has stated that she has not gone to the house of her father-in-law after her marriage. So the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 reveals that the Petitioner and the opposite party might have been living for some time in the house of the Petitioner and at other times in the house of the opposite party. It is in the evidence of P.W. 2 that the Petitioner calls her as 'mother' by courtesy. The reliable evidence of P.W. 3 shows that the opposite party had given her his photograph with the Petitioner (Ext. 1) revealing that he too was intimately known to P.W. 3. So whether the parties lived in the house of the Petitioner or in the house of the opposite party, P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the persons, who had special means of knowledge regarding the relationship between the Petitioner and the opposite party and so they are the competent persons to depose that the opposite party and the Petitioner were living as husband and wife. 9. By adducing reliable oral evidence the Petitioner has satisfactorily discharged the onus that lay on her to prove the factum of her marriage with the opposite party. 9. By adducing reliable oral evidence the Petitioner has satisfactorily discharged the onus that lay on her to prove the factum of her marriage with the opposite party. u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure 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, Code of Criminal Procedure Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure provides a swift and summary remedy for providing maintenance and for preventing vagrancy. Keeping in view the above settled position of law, when the material on record is considered, it is clear that the Petitioner has satisfactorily proved that she was legally married to the opposite party and that a daughter was born out of their wedlock. The very fact that the opposite party could not dare to examine himself as a witness and swear on oath that the Petitioner is not his wife and that the child born to her is not his daughter, is a circumstance which very much goes in favour of the Petitioner and against the opposite party. The approach of the trial court to the material on record is quite superficial. The appreciation of the evidence by the trial court is perverse and that unless the finding of the trial court that the Petitioner is not the legally married wife of the opposite party is set aside, it would result in travesty of justice. Hence, I find that the Petitioner s the legally married wife of the opposite party and that a daughter was born to them out of their wedlock. 10. From the finding of the trial court regarding the financial capacity of the opposite party, it is seen that the opposite party has the means to maintain his wife, the Petitioner, and the child born out of their wedlock. The Petitioner's statement on oath that she has no source of income can be safely accepted as true. P.W. 1 deposed that the opposite party is a bus and truck owner at Biramitrapur and is a contractor. P.W. 2 stated that the opposite party is a bus owner. The Petitioner's statement on oath that she has no source of income can be safely accepted as true. P.W. 1 deposed that the opposite party is a bus and truck owner at Biramitrapur and is a contractor. P.W. 2 stated that the opposite party is a bus owner. P.W. 3 stated that the opposite party has got a mini-bus and has 25 acres of landed properties. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 to the effect that the opposite party is a man of substantial means goes unchallenged. The Petitioner states on oath that she requires Rs. 500/- per month for the maintenance of herself and her daughter. From the very fact that the opposite party has falsely asserted that the Petitioner is not his wife, it is evident that he deserted her without any justification and refuses to maintain his wife (the Petitioner) and his daughter. From the evidence it is seen that the opposite party has refused to maintain his wife (the Petitioner) and his daughter and they are not in a position to maintain themselves. There is reliable evidence to show that the opposite party is a man of substantial means. Considering such factors, as the present day cost of living, the status of the parties, the financial capacity of the opposite party and the like, I feel that it is fair and reasonable to award maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 240/- per month and at the rate of Rs. 120/- per month for her daughter. 11. In the result, the order of the learned Magistrate rejecting the petition for payment of maintenance to the Petitioner and her child is hereby set aside. The opposite party-husband is hereby directed to pay maintenance to the Petitioner at the rate of Rs. 240/- (rupees two hundred and forty) per month and at the rate of Rs. 120/- (rupees one hundred and twenty) per month to the daughter from the date of passing the impugned order by the learned Magistrate, that is from 29.3.1984 onwards.