JUDGMENT (ORAL) I.G. Shah, J. - The original opponent-husband has preferred this revision application to challenge the order pased against him by J.M.F.C., Bhiwandi, in Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 1985 directing him to pay Rs. 400/- per month towards maintenance from the date of application and that the said maintenance amount shall be paid by the 12th day of each succeeding month and he shall also pay Rs. 500/- towards costs of the application to the applicant, the wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present revision application are as under: The wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code to claim maintenance from her husband the present revision petitioner alleging that their marriage took place according to Muslim Personal Law on 22nd April 1984 at Padgha, taluka Bhiwandi, District Thane that immediately after the marriage she was taken to Nasik by the husband at his place of residence and she resided there for two days, that on 24th day of February 1984 she was brought back to her father's house and thereafter again she was taken to Nasik by her father on 29th April 1984, that thereafter on 5th May 1984 the husband brought her back to Padgha and promised that he would take her back soon thereafter; but the husband did not come to take her back in spite of letters sent by her. Therefore, along with her maternal uncle she went to husband's friend one Ainullah at Santacruz where the husband used to frequently visit and fortunately the husband was there at the house of Ainullah at that time and he told that his family members did not like her and, therefore, she should reside with her parents for some period and thereafter he would make some arrangements of separate residence and then will take the applicant back for co-habitation; but he did not do so, and therefore, after a period of about two months she was taken by her uncle to Nasik, but she did not succeed in cohabiting with the husband. She further claimed that she thereafter learnt that her husband had contacted marriage again with another girl from Bhiwandi. She, therefore, sent a notice on 4th October 1984 andc1aimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. She further claimed that she thereafter learnt that her husband had contacted marriage again with another girl from Bhiwandi. She, therefore, sent a notice on 4th October 1984 andc1aimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the husband as he had got married second time, and as he had neglected and refused to take her back to his house. The husband replied to the said notice on 12th October 1984 and gave false reply but in the said reply he admitted that he had got married second time. The wife, therefore, claimed that she is entitled to reside separately from her husband as she is refused and neglected to be maintained by the husband and as also that he had got married second time during the subsistence of their marriage. She claimed in the petition Rs. 500/- by way of maintenance for herself. She also contended that she is unable to maintain her. 3. The husband resisted the application and d raised several contentions. He also contended that the wife was not legally wedded wife to him. He also denied that he had neglected and refused to maintain her. He also denied that he had sufficient means to maintain her and that the wife was unable to maintain her. On the strength of the evidence led before the learned Magistrate, he found that the wife had established that she is the legally wedded wife of the husband and that she was refused and neglected to be maintained by the husband also that he had got married second time and, therefore, the wife was entitled to reside separately and claim maintenance. The learned Magistrate also found that the wife was unable to maintain herself and the husband had sufficient means to maintain her. He, therefore, awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month to the wife. Being aggrieved by the said order of maintenance against him, the husband has come in the revision to this Court. 4. In view of the arguments advanced before me, the points that arise for determination are as to whether the husband's contention that the wife is not legally wedded wife has some substance or not. Being aggrieved by the said order of maintenance against him, the husband has come in the revision to this Court. 4. In view of the arguments advanced before me, the points that arise for determination are as to whether the husband's contention that the wife is not legally wedded wife has some substance or not. It was also tried to be contended before me that the quantum of maintenance that has been awarded is also unduly harsh and without taking into consideration the fact that the husband is working only as a machanic and is earning Rs. 300/- per month only. 5. As far as the fact of marriage' is concerned, there is no dispute that some ceremony of marriage was undertaken. The dispute is based on the fact that at the time of the marriage instead of the step brother of the wife, the maternal uncle acted as a guardian. It was contended that the parties are governed by Shaft School and according to Mohammedan Law the consent of marriage could be given by the guardians of the bride and it could be given by the relatives of the bride coming from the father's side first and only in their absence the consent could be given by relative from the mother's side. 6. Shri Haindaday, the learned Counsel appearing for the husband, tried to contend that even from the judgment of the lower court, it is clear that such consent of her relative is necessary. He, however, contended that the learned Magistrate erred in holding that the consent of maternal uncle is also sufficient Chapter XIV of the Principles of Mahammedan Law by Mulla deals with the Marriage, Maintenance of Wives and Restitution of Conjugal Rights. Section 251 speaks of capacity of sound and, who has attained puberty, may enter into a contract of marriage. Sub-section (2) of the said Section 251 lays down further that lunatics and minors who have not attained puberty may be validly contracted in marriage by their respective guardians. Sections 270 to 275 deals with marriage of minors and also Guardianship in marriage. 7. In the present case it is an admitted position that both spouses at the time of the marriage were major. They were not only major but were mature. Under these circumstances, really speaking the question of guardian's acting in the marriage does not arise at all. 7. In the present case it is an admitted position that both spouses at the time of the marriage were major. They were not only major but were mature. Under these circumstances, really speaking the question of guardian's acting in the marriage does not arise at all. Even if any such guardian acted at the time of marriage, it was only redundant under the provisions of Mohammedan Law. Once a person has attained puberty he can enter into a contract of marriage according to Mahomedan law. Therefore, in. the present case where both the spouses were major, 'merely because the maternal uncle acted as a guardian and gave consent for the marriage on behalf of the bride which was not necessary, if the bride herself had given consent for the marriage. There is no challenge that the bride had not consented to the marriage. On the contrary there is also the evidence of Qazi that the bride was asked through the Vakil appointed and the Vakil conveyed her consent for the marriage with the present revision petitioner. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention which is tried to be raised on behalf of the husband. 8. It was also contended that the husband had contended before the learned Magistrate that the consent of the husband was obtained by fraud and certain misrepresentations were made to him before he was induced to consent for the marriage. Even if it is assumed that such contention is raised, it would be a case of fraud that is tried to be made out and it would be for the husband to get the marriage declared void on that ground by taking proper legal steps. He cannot be allowed to contend this in a summary proceedings - under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Once it is admitted that certain marriage ceremonies were undergone and the wife was taken to the house of the bridegroom and that she resided there for sometime, for the purposes of the proceedings under section 125 the marriage will have to be assumed so be a legal one. It was also tried to be contended that according to the husband the marriage was not consumated, and, therefore, also the wife was not-legally wedded wife. The wife on the contrary has denied the said allegation and has state that the marriage was consumated. It was also tried to be contended that according to the husband the marriage was not consumated, and, therefore, also the wife was not-legally wedded wife. The wife on the contrary has denied the said allegation and has state that the marriage was consumated. Therefore, also it cannot be said that on that count the marriage is ab initio void. Apart from this during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate, attempts were made to arrive at some compromise and the husband has actually given Purshis wherein he has admitted the legality of the marriage and he had agreed that he would take the wife to his house. But ultimately the settlement did not take place. However, the facts stated about the legality of marriage in that Purshis given by the husband also would be sufficient to hold that his contentions about the illegality of the marriage are only for the sake of defence in this case. 9. It was also tried to be contended on behalf of the husband that there was absolutely no reason for the wife to go and reside with her parents. The said contention has no substance at all. Even the defence in this case is clearly suggestive of the fact that the husband was not interested in the wife. The very fact that he even denied that he had entered into a legal marriage with the wife is indicative of the fact that he himself was not willing to cohabit with the wife and, therefore, the wife was justified in residing separately from him and she would be entitled to claim maintenance. Apart from this it is also clear that the husband admittedly had got married second time during the subsistence of the marriage with the present applicant This also would give right to the wife to reside separately and claim maintenance from him even without the proof of refusal and neglect on the part of the husband. In the result, there is no substance in the contention tried to be raised on behalf of the wife that the wife is not entitled to any maintenance. 10. As far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, an attempt is tried to be made before this Court that the husband is only earning Rs. 300/- per month by way of a salary by working as a mechanic in a garage. 10. As far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, an attempt is tried to be made before this Court that the husband is only earning Rs. 300/- per month by way of a salary by working as a mechanic in a garage. It was contended that the husband had examined his master also and the master had supported this contention. It was contended that there is no. other evidence adduced by the wife to show that the husband had some other source of income. Agricultural lands etc. are of the father of the, husband and they cannot be considered for determination of the quantum. Even if it is assumed that the agricultural lands of the father of the husband cannot be considered while arriving at the quantum of maintenance to be awarded to the wife, it is difficult to accept the evidence led by the husband that he would be getting only Rs. 300/- by working as a mechanic. The husband resides and works at Nasik which is a District place and also an industrialised city. In a place like this even a labourer would get not less than Rs. 121- per day and if it is assumed that he was geuing work only for 25 days in a month, he would be earning about Rs. 300/- per month. So if an unskilled labour can get. Rs. 300/- per month, it is difficult to accept that a mechanic, who must be considered as a skilled labourer, will get only Rs. 300/- per month. The master examined by the husband did not produce any record showing that he was paying only Rs. 300/- per month to the husband. It was necessary for the husband to produce satisfactory evidence about his income. In the absence of such satisfactory evidence, it would be proper to assume that he being a skilled labourer would be getting at least about Rs. 700/- to Rs. 800/- per month by working as a mechanic in a garage. Under these circum. stances, the quamum of maintenance arrived at by the Trial Court at Rs. 400/- per month does not require any interference in this revision. 11. In the result, the revision application has no merit and the same fails. The revision application, therefore, is dismissed. Rule discharged. Revision dismissed.