JUDGMENT : V. Gopalaswamy, J. - This revisions preferred by the present Petitioner against the order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri, in Misc. Case No. 112 of 1985, a proceeding u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, directing the present Petitioner to pay maintenance to the opposite party at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month. 2. The case of the opposite party Sukanti Sahoo is that she is the legally married wife of the Petitioner Nrusingha Charan Sahoo end she married him on 16.8.1978 at village Beideswar in the temple of Lord Gopinath Jew in the presence of friends and relations and thereafter they led married life for about 2 to 3 years and through him she gave birth to two male children and both of them did not survive for long. The opposite party alleges that when she conceived for the second time, the Petitioner brought her and left her with her mother at Puri and thereafter the Petitioner started neglecting her and ultimately deserted her and married another lady named Santilata. As the opposite party was thus deserted by the Petitioner and as he neglected to maintain her and as she has no means of maintaining herself she had to file Misc. Case No. 112 of 1985 claiming maintainance from her husband. 3. The gist of the case of the present Petitioner is that he never married the opposite party and her claim that she is his legally married wife is false and baseless. The Petitioner alleges that the opposite party and his mother used to serve as main-servants in his house and in the houses of others and that as he was a rich and influential person she is falsely claiming herself to be his wife and that as she is not his legally married wife she is not entitled claim any maintenance from him and the petition filed for maintenance is therefore, liable to be dismissed. 4. From the contentions raised by the parties before the lower court it is seen that whether the opposite party is the legally married wife of the Petitioner was the main issue that came up for decision. In support of the respective contentions, the parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence. 4. From the contentions raised by the parties before the lower court it is seen that whether the opposite party is the legally married wife of the Petitioner was the main issue that came up for decision. In support of the respective contentions, the parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence. The opposite party wife, besides examining herself as a witness examined three other witnesses in support of her case, whereas the Petitioner husband examined himself and nine others in support of his case. Both the parties have led documentary evidence also in support of their respective contentions. 5. The Petitioner and the opposite party belong to the Sahoo community. P.W.1 is one of the important persons in village Baideswar and he too belongs to the same community as that of parties. So he is a competent witness to depose about the relationship between the parties. He has stated on oath that he had seen both the parties residing in a rented house and living as husband and wife. He further deposed that the opposite party-wife gave birth to a male child in that rented house and the child lived only for a short time. P.W. 2 is another independent witness, who deposed about the marriage between the parties and their living together as husband and wife for some year. P.W. 3 is the Secretary of "Ekadasha Rajya Tailikya Baisya Mahasabha" and he is an old man aged about 66 years and he also deposed that the opposite party is the wife of the Petitioner. The opposite party-wife gave evidence in support of her case. The Petitioner-husband as P.W. 10 admmited that his father had paid Rs. 5,000/- towards the maintenance of the opposite party Sukanti and this is a circumstance which goes in favour of the present opposite party. The present Petitioner has examined other witnesses also in support of his case that the opposite party is not his legally married wife. 6. Besides the oral evidence, the parties have relied on the documentary evidence adduced by them. Exts. 6 and 7 are the voters lists, wherein the present opposite party was shown as the wife of the present Petitioner. Exts. 6. Besides the oral evidence, the parties have relied on the documentary evidence adduced by them. Exts. 6 and 7 are the voters lists, wherein the present opposite party was shown as the wife of the present Petitioner. Exts. 1 to 5 are the notices issued by the Secretary of "Ekadasha Rajya Tailikya Baisya Mahasabha" to the present Petitioner and to his father on different occasions in connection with the dispute between the parties and in all the notices the present opposite party was described as the wife of the Petitioner. The Mahasabha was maintaining books relating to its proceedings and they are marked as Exts. 9 to 12. The present Petitioner relied on the proceedings book of the Mahasabha for the year 1981 marked as Ext. A. From page 65 of the book Ext. A it is seen that the Mahasabha has considered the application filed by the opposite party and after such consideration, the father of the present Petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the present opposite party towards her maintenance. So Ext. A does not support the case of the Petitioner. 7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the S.D.J.M., Puri, had no jurisdiction to entertain the opposite party's petition u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure. Both parties have willingly participated in the 125, Code of Criminal Procedure proceedings conducted by the S.D.J.M., Puri, and at no stage of the proceedings, the Petitioner questioned his competence to entertain the petition u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure. So at this belated stage after an adverse order was finally passed against him, it is not open to the Petitioner to advance an argument on the issue of jurisdiction and therefore, the same merits no consideration at all. 8. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the evidence adduced by the opposite party is not consistent with her averments in the petition u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure. An illiterate lady in distress seeking maintenance from her husband, after, hewing lost all hopes of leading a married life with him is not always expected to have the proper state of mind while instructing her lawyer for drafting a petition u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure giving out embarrassing particulars of past events concerning herself and her husband. An illiterate lady in distress seeking maintenance from her husband, after, hewing lost all hopes of leading a married life with him is not always expected to have the proper state of mind while instructing her lawyer for drafting a petition u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure giving out embarrassing particulars of past events concerning herself and her husband. Moreover, a lady, who has no means to maintain herself, is not expected to have the means to engage a competent lawyer, as observed by this Court in Yudhistir v. Rukmani (1989) 2 OCR 687. That apart, the proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not strictly criminal nor strictly civil and they may be appropriately described as quasi-criminal or quasi-criminal-quasi-civil. The rules of pleadings contained in Orders VI, VII and VIII, C.P.C. cannot apply to proceedings. For maintenance u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the proceedings are not civil proceedings See Norbet Kispatta Vs. Mst. Tersa Kerketa. Even in civil proceedings, it was observed by the Privy Council in some decisions that pleadings in this country, especially the muffasil, should not be construed with strictness. See Ghirdharee Sing v. Koolahul Sing Vol III. M.A. 344 and Secretary of State for India in Council v. Laxmibai and Anr. 50 I.A. 491 . Adopting the same line the Supreme Court observed in Kidar Lall Seal and Another Vs. Hari Lall Seal that "it would be slow to throw out a claim on a mere technicality of pleading when the substance of the thing is there and no prejudice is caused to the other side, however clumsily or inartistically the plaint may be worded". So the averments of a Petitioner wife in a petition u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure should not be construed with strictness. 9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner pointed out certain minor discrepancies in the evidence of the P.Ws. and relied on the same to show that the opposite party has not satisfactorily proved her marriage with the Petitioner. In this context several decisions were cited at the Bar on the aspect of the standard of proof of marriage in a proceeding u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure. and relied on the same to show that the opposite party has not satisfactorily proved her marriage with the Petitioner. In this context several decisions were cited at the Bar on the aspect of the standard of proof of marriage in a proceeding u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure. In Bikram ' Bika Parida v. Adar Dei 64 (1987) C.L.T. 733, this Court, after considering some of the decisions on the subject observed thus: ...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, 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. The provisions of Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, of the new Code were earlier covered by Section 488 of the Old Code in S. Sethurathinamus case (1970) 1 S.C.W.R. 589 , the Supreme Court observed that the order passed in an application filed u/s 488, Code of Criminal Procedure 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 marriage will not operate as decisive in any civil proceeding between the parties for determining those questions. The said observations of the Supreme Court reveals the rationale for relaxing the standard of proof of marriage in, a proceeding u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, which is meant to provide a summary remedy for providing maintenance and for preventing vagrancy. 10. The said observations of the Supreme Court reveals the rationale for relaxing the standard of proof of marriage in, a proceeding u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, which is meant to provide a summary remedy for providing maintenance and for preventing vagrancy. 10. On a perusal of the impugned order it is seen that it was only after a careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties the learned Magistrate arrived at the finding that the present opposite party is the legally married wife of the Petitioner. On a consideration of the material placed on record. I see no reason to differ with the said finding. The orders granting maintenance to helpless wives and children are not to be lightly interfered with in revision, if no grave illegality or manifest injustice is made out. See Balmiki Naik v. Labanga Naik (1988) 1 O.C.R. 468. 11. Considering such facts as the needs of the opposite party; the economic status of the present Petitioner, the present day cost of living etcetera. I find that the learned S.D.J.M. was justified in awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350/- (rupees three hundred and fifty) per month to the present opposite party. 12. In the result. I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed