A. S. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is preferred against the order dated 12th of December, 1988 passed by Turd Additional Sessions Judge of Shivpuri, whereby the non-petitioner was allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month against the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was alleged to have married with the non-petitioner. She was living with the petitioner for sometime. Thereafter the non petitioner was turned out from the house of the petitioner and she was living with her parents. The non-petitioner had no means to maintain herself. She had filed a petition for maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Magistrate concerned. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate after recording the evidence held that the marriage of the non-petitioner with the petitioner was not proved, and the petition was dismissed. ( 4 ) AGAINST that order, a revision was preferred, which was heard and decided by the learned Turd Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri on 12th of December, 1983 holding that the marriage was proved on record. The finding of the Magistrate was set aside and keeping in view the income of the petitioner, maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month was allowed to the petitioner. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by this order, the present revision has been filed. ( 6 ) I have heard Mr. Anil Mishra and Mr. Krishna Murti Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. S. Chouhan, learned Counsel for the non-petitioner and perused the record. ( 7 ) ON the point of marriage, there has been specific evidence of the non-petitioner on oath and that of her father, mother and other witnesses what had deposed that the non-petitioner was married with the petitioner according to Hindu rites. ( 8 ) THE finding of the Trial Court that Pandit and Nai were not produced was rightly rejected by the Revisional Court as on that ground alone the factum of marriage could not be disproved. ( 9 ) IN view of the marriage, the non-petitioner was burdened to prove the factum of marriage, which she had successfully discharged by examining herself, her father and mother and other witnesses, Mere denial by the petitioner of the marriage was not enough to reject the marriage of the non-petitioner with the petitioner, which was solemnized according to Hindu rites. The Revisional Court was justified in recording the finding that the non-petitioner had discharged her burden to prove the marriage with the petitioner. Mere denial of the petitioner was not enough. There is nothing to differ with the findings of the Revisional Court recorded on this point. ( 10 ) ON the point of maintenance, the evidence has led that the petitioner had income of at-least Rs. 15,000/- per year from agriculture and other business. It has also come in evidence that the non-petitioner was living on the mercy of her father, mother and brother. The mother had died. Now father and brother were unable to maintain her. The non-petitioner had no source of income of her own and as such she was entitled to maintenance for her livelihood. ( 11 ) THE learned Revisional Court had considered this point and found that the minimum quantum of Rs. 300/- per month was justified for living of the non-petitioner and the same was allowed. The quantum of maintenance allowed by the Revisional Court is the minimum which is required by an individual to survive. There is no reason to interfere with this finding of the Revisional Court regarding the quantum of maintenance. ( 12 ) AS such, in any point of view, this revision does not call for any interference with the order passed by the Revisional Court. The revision has no merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. Revision dismissed. .