JUDGMENT N.N. Singh, J. 1. Smt Dasodiya daughter of Basudev Vishwakarma who is non-applicant in the present revision had filed an application for grant of maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court of J.M.F.C., Mauganj, district Rewa, against the present applicant Shiv Narayan but the same was dismissed vide order dated 20 4.90 on the ground that the applicant had failed to establish the fact that she was legal, marriage wife of Shiv Narayan. Smt. Dasodiya being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Magistrate preferred Criminal Revision No. 51/90 before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge. Rewa who vide order dated 9-4-92 allowed the revision holding that Dasodiya was the married wife of Shivnarayan alias Saboo and he awarded maintenance allowance not only to Smt, Dasodiya but also to her daughter at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of the application and this order is under challenge in the present revision filed on behalf of applicant Shivnarayan. 2. The First ground on which the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rewa is that no opportunity had been given to the applicant at the time of passing of the order because the applicant had never received any summons from the Court and nor he had refused to accept any summons and that, the order had been passed in his absence. In this regard, the submission on behalf of the non-applicant was that notice had been issued by the Revisional Court to the present applicant Shiv Narayan by registered post and that the same had been "Refused", and for this reason, the Revisional Court vide order sheet dated 30-10-91 had proceeded ex-parte. It as further submitted that no affidavit had been filed by Shiv Narayan to rebute the fact of service of notice sent to him by registered post to show that he had not refused to accept the service. The revisional Court held the service on the non-applicant Shivnarayan to be good and vaid service and hence, the submission made on behalf of (he present applicant Shivnarayan that the order was passed in his absence and without giving him any opportunity can not be accepted. 3. The revisional Court held the service on the non-applicant Shivnarayan to be good and vaid service and hence, the submission made on behalf of (he present applicant Shivnarayan that the order was passed in his absence and without giving him any opportunity can not be accepted. 3. On behalf of the applicant the submission was that the learned Revision Court had completely fiaild to properly appreciate the evidence adduced before the Trial Court and he had reversed the finding of the Trial Magistrate that Smt. Dasodiya was not the legally married wife of the applicant Shivnarayan on mere conjectures and surmises and the impugned order being perverse deserves to be set aside. It was further submitted that quantum of Maintenance awarded to the present non-applicant Smt. Dasodiya and her minor daughter had been fixed arbitrarily without considering the status of the applicant who is to unemployed person and to support the aforesaid submission reliance was placed on A.I.R. 1960 All. Page 335. (b) (Ram Singh v. State and Anr.); 1962 M.P.L.J. (Vol. 7) Short-Note 60) Taras Prasad v. Jankibai), A.I.R. 1954 (Allahabad page 33 (b) (Sm. Chamali v. Gajraj Bahadur Gupta). 1973 Cr.L.J. page, 1501 (Jallandar Gorakh Kirtikar v. Smt. Shobha J. Kirtikar and Anr. and 1937 M.P. Weekly Notes Part 2) Short Note (126), Begadhal v. Shankar Singh). 4. On behalf of the non-applicant the submission of her Counsel was that the proceedings for grant of maintenance allowance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereof a summary nature and unlike matrimonial proceedings where a strict proof of marriage is essential, in proceedings Under Section 123 Cr.P.C. such standard of proof is not necessary. The submission was that in the society in which we live no lady would falsely allege that any person wos her husband unless she was actually married to him. It was also submitted that although the husband may deny the fact that a particular lady was his legally married wife just in order to avoid payment of maintenance but no women would falsely state that the particular person was her husband and that the child was be gotten through him. To support his aforesaid submission reliance was placed on 1986 M.P.L.J. page 581, (Radhamani W\o Sonu Dhakad v. Sonu Balram), and 1973. M.P.L J. page 257, (Phoolo Bai Joge v. Beero S/o Sukrata). It was further submitted on behalf of the non-applicant that the learned Additional Sessions Judge. To support his aforesaid submission reliance was placed on 1986 M.P.L.J. page 581, (Radhamani W\o Sonu Dhakad v. Sonu Balram), and 1973. M.P.L J. page 257, (Phoolo Bai Joge v. Beero S/o Sukrata). It was further submitted on behalf of the non-applicant that the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Rewa had adopted the correct approach and he was justified in holding that such strict proof of marriage as was essential in a matrimonial suit was not required in proceeding Under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which were of a summary nature. The submission was that the applicant had clearly established the fact that she was the legally married wife of the present applicant Shivnarayan and the child was begotten through him and that the witnesses examined on behalf of the applicant to prove her marriage with Shivnarayan could not have been disbelieved on account of minor discrepancies in their evidence. Regarding the quantum of maintenance the submission was that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa had fully considered the evidence before awarding maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/- per month to the present non-applicant Smt. Dasodiya and that there being no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, in Criminal Revision No 61/90, calls for no interference. 5. I have carefully perused the order passed by the Trial Court as also the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in Criminal Revision No. 61/90, it appears that the learned Trial Court has not adopted the correct approach in evaluating the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant regarding her marriage with Shivnarayan because strict proof of marriage and the standard of proof required in matrimonial suits the same standard of proof was not required in proceedings Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which were more or less a summary nature. In a case Under Section 125 Cr.P.C the Courts should not be too rigid, dogmatic and technical in evaluating the over all evidence on record. On the contrary the whole approach should be pragmatic keeping in view the status of the parties the, social environment in which they live and their illiteracy and backwardness, if any. In this regard the approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On the contrary the whole approach should be pragmatic keeping in view the status of the parties the, social environment in which they live and their illiteracy and backwardness, if any. In this regard the approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Rewa appears to be correct and the reasons given by him for holding that Smt. Desodiya was the married wife of Shivnarayan are fully justified and call for no interference in this revision. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa regarding grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to Smt. Dasodiya and her child from the date of application also can not be said to be arbitrary and without any basis as hard been submitted on behalf of the applicant Shivarayan. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa has given valid reasons for awarding the aforesaid maintenance allowance. In this regard the submission on behalf on the applicant was the applicant was an unemployed Engineer and he was dependent on his father and so he was not pay any maintenance allowance, can not be accepted. The applicant clearly stated that her husband had previously taken training and that he was now working as an Engineer and, hence, she was entitled to Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance allowance from her husband, It cannot be imagine that an Engineer would be without any employment and would even then going for the second marriage, if he was unemployed. It appears that the stand taken by Shivnarayan that he was unemployed was only taken to avoid his liability to pay maintenance allowance to his first Smt. Dasodiya who was living with her father and brother. On taking a conspecuous in my considered opinion, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committee no illegality or perversity in passing the impugned order dated 9-4-92 in Cr. Rev. No. 61/90 so as to call for any interference in this revision. 6. This revision petition filed on behalf of the applicant Shivnarayan is, accordingly, dismissed.