LINGARAJA RATH, J. ( 1 ) THE question arising for consideration in this revision is entitlement of oppositte party No. 1 and her son opposite party No. 2 to maintenance from the petitioner claiming that she is the wife of the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 to have been born out of their wedlock. The submission urged by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that even accepting the finding of the learned Magistrate that there was marriage by exchange of garlands between the parties, yet it does not become a valid marriage and as such opposite party No. 1 could never become the wife of the petitioner so as to be entitled to maintenance. The esential facts are that the father of opposite party No. 1 was a blind person and with his consent, as the evidence led by opposite party No. 1 shows, the parties exchanged garlands in a temple vowing to be married to each other and the temple priest performed some puja thereafter. They lived as husband and wife and out of their union opposite party No. 2 was born three years after. Besides the father of opposite party No. 1 was examined as P. W. l and opposite party No. 1 examined as PW 4, the fact of marriage was deposed to by PW 3 who also stated of the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 having lived together as husband and wife and the opposite party No. 2 to have been born to them. The evidence of PW 2 is also to the effect of the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 were living together as husband and wife. The petitioner examined three witnesses all of whom stated of there having been no marriage and the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 as having never lived together. The learned Magistrate analysing the evidence came to hold that there had been marriage of the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 at the temple by exchange of garlands after which some Pujas were performed, that they lived after the marriage together as husband and wife and opposite party No. 2 to have been born to them. As regards the evidence led by the petitioner it was his finding that such evidence did not displace the evidence of opposite party No. 1 of there having been a marriage by exchange of garlands. As regards the evidence led by the petitioner it was his finding that such evidence did not displace the evidence of opposite party No. 1 of there having been a marriage by exchange of garlands. ( 2 ) THERE are successive decisions of this Court holding that where a marriage has been performed by exchange of gardlands accompanied by some ceremonial rites after which the parties had lived as husband and wife, the lady was entitled to claim maintenance in case of a casue of action arising for the same. Mr. Das however relies upon a decision of the Apex Court, AIR 1988 SC 644 (Yamunabai v. Anantrao) to contend that where the marriage was itself a void one and not recognised by law, the claim of maintenance is to be rejected since under Section 125, Cr. P. C. the onus is upon the wife to estgtablish a legal and valid marriage to have taken place, when the marriage itself is questioned. ( 3 ) PARTIES in this case are undoubtedly Hindus and are governed by the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 7 of the Act says that a Hindu Marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto and where such rites and ceremonies include saptapadi, the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. The first part of the section does not specify the customary rites and ceremonies but leaves those to the individual customs. Section 11 of the Act declares that marriage made in contravention of the provisions of Section 5 (i) (iv) and (v), namely, where either party has a spouse living at the time of marriage; the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship; and where the parties are not Sapindas of each other, as void with the exception that so far as the bar of prohibited relationship and marriage between Sapindas is concerned, the marriage is not void if the customary usage governing each of them permits such a marriage. We are not concerned here with voidable marriages as defined in Section 12 of the Act as Mr. Das fairly concedes that if the marriage is voidable the question of refusal of payment of maintenance does not arise. ( 4 ) IT would be seen that Section 11 itself does not ipso facto delcares Gandharba form of marriage a nullity. We are not concerned here with voidable marriages as defined in Section 12 of the Act as Mr. Das fairly concedes that if the marriage is voidable the question of refusal of payment of maintenance does not arise. ( 4 ) IT would be seen that Section 11 itself does not ipso facto delcares Gandharba form of marriage a nullity. But even so if under Section 7 marriage can be performed only by the way provided for in the Section, a marriage performed without conforming to that becomes a marriage not performed in accordance with law. Afticle 428 of Mulla's Hindu Law, l5th Edn. says that so far as Gandharba form of marriage is concerned, the essential marriage ceremonies are as much requisite parts of that form of marriage as of any other, unless it is shown that some modification of those ceremonies has been introduced by custom in any particular community or caste. The question was considered in (1946) ILR 25 Patna 58 (Kamini Devi v. M. D. Sir Kameshwar Singh) acknowledging celebration of Gandharwa form of marriage attended to by Homa and Saptapadi to be valid marriage. ( 5 ) THE position hence emerges that a Gandharva form of marriage is not ipso facto void if it is accompanied with the usual ceremonial rites. Since that is so, it may become necessary to establish, in the event of challenge, that the marriage was accompanied with such rites. The submission of Mr. Das relying on AIR 1988 SC 644 (supra) that the marriage is void and hence maintenance cannot be granted as such cannot be accepted as the decision is only an authority for the proposition when the marriage is void, and has no application to the present case where the marriage is not ipso facto void. ( 6 ) NOW coming to the question of proof of a valid marriage of the parties, it is by now well settled in law that the quantum of proof necessary to establish a marriage is not rigid and that it suffices, so far as the claim of maintenances is concerned, only to establish that the marriage had been gone through. Indeed, even when the marriage is not proved, it is sufficient to establish that the parties were living as husband and wife and were recognised as such by the community where they lived. Indeed, even when the marriage is not proved, it is sufficient to establish that the parties were living as husband and wife and were recognised as such by the community where they lived. ( 7 ) IN 1982 Criminal Law Journal 539 (Saudamini v. Bhagirathi), a learned single Judge of this Court held that Section 125 Cr. P. C. 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 intricacies of law to find out if there is a valid marriage. In that case the wife stated that she married the husband in the Gandhrva form and after exchange of garlands certain ceremonial rites were performed. The Court held that the wife was entitled to maintenance claimed in the case. In 1985 OLR 589 (Chakradhar Pradhan v. Asali Dei) another single Judge of this Court held in a similar case that as the parties had been living together as husband and wife and were being treated as such by the public, marriage can be inferred between them for the purpose of award of maintenance and strict proof of the formalities of a valid marriage is not necessary. These two cases were followed in (1987) 63 CLT 628 (Smt. Rathan Pradhan v. Abhi Pradhan) wherein it was held that where the factum of marriage is denied, it must be proved sastisfactorily that there was a valid marriage the onus being on the wife. Yet, in a proceeding under Section 125, Cr PC the Magistrate is not expected to go into the question relating to the validity of the marriage, and living as husband and wife and being treated by others as such is quite sufficient for award of maintenance under the section. The standard of proof of marriage need not be so high as in a proceeding under Section 494 IPC for bigamy or a proceeding for divorce. A similar view was also taken by the Calcutta High Court in (1984) 88 Calcutta Weekly Notes 1010 (Jiban Dev Sarkar v. Sm. The standard of proof of marriage need not be so high as in a proceeding under Section 494 IPC for bigamy or a proceeding for divorce. A similar view was also taken by the Calcutta High Court in (1984) 88 Calcutta Weekly Notes 1010 (Jiban Dev Sarkar v. Sm. Golapi Dey Sarkar) that where from the oral and documentary evidence on record the facts appeared that the priest had deposed that both the parties declared that they intended to marry each other then and there, that there was exchange of garlands, putting of vermilion mark on the forehead of the wife by the husband, Mantras and blessings were conferred on the parties, a photograph clearly depicted that the husband was putting vermilion mark on the forehead of the wife, here was distribution of sweets to all persons present during the ceremony, subsequent of the husband in visiting his wife and even staying with her on occasions and the conduct of the wife in squatting outside the husband's house for days in the hope of being taken in, and the demand and refusal of the payment of maintenance, a marriage for the limited purpose of Section 125, Cr PC could be said to have been established. ( 8 ) IN view of such consistent weight of authorities and the facts of the present case that admittedly the marriage was intended to be gone through between the parties by exchange of garlands attended by certain Pujas thereafter and the parties lived as husband and wife for more than three years out of which relationship opposite party No. 2 was born, it would be indeed difficult to concede the submission of Mr. Das that there was no marriage and that the petitioner was free to disregard the marriage so as to avoid the claim of maintenance against him. All the ingredients that are necessary to press the claim of maintenance have been established and the order of the learned Magistrate does not call for any interference. The revision has no merit and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.