JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Opposite party in Criminal Misc. Case No. 42/89 u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short, 'the Code') of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Daspalla has preferred this revision challenging the order of monthly maintenance granted at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month to the present opposite party (who was the petitioner in the lower Court), vide the impugned judgment dated 19.4.1994. 2. Claiming to be the legally married wife on the basis of a temple marriage at Tarini Temple and thereafter claiming cruelty and desertion and her inability to sustain her livelihood opposite party claimed for maintenance from the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month on the ground that petitioner, who is her husband, is an employee under the Forest Corporation and earning Rs. 1,500/- per month and besides that he-has landed property ennuring an income of Rs. 20,000/- per annum. She also alleged that after deserting her, petitioner has already married for the second time in spite of a suit for injunction pending against him. 3. Petitioner disputed the relationship of husband and wife and stated that there was no such temple marriage at all. He has stated that negotiation at their families level for marriage between the parties failed. However, he wanted to marry the opposite party and in that respect both of them applied for registration of the marriage at the place of his training, but since the opposite party in a suspicious manner moved with a neighbour named Rabindra Kumar Rath (P.W. 2) petitioner dropped the idea of marrying her. He has denied to the source of income from the landed properties and has stated that opposite party being serving as an Anganbadi worker setting a monthly salary of Rs. 500/-, she is not entitled to any further maintenance. 4. To substantiate her case opposite party examined herself and her father as P.Ws. 1 and 3 respectively and the above named P.W. 2 who signed as a witness in the application for marriage and thereafter the conduct of the parties regarding residing at Daspalla as husband and wife. Petitioner examined himself as O.P.W. 2 and the Kali Prasad Panda as O.P.W. 1 and relied upon the certified copy of the deposition of P.W. 1 in a previous criminal proceeding. 5. Petitioner examined himself as O.P.W. 2 and the Kali Prasad Panda as O.P.W. 1 and relied upon the certified copy of the deposition of P.W. 1 in a previous criminal proceeding. 5. Learned J. M.F.C. formulated relevant issues if the opposite party is the wife of the petitioner, whether she was neglected and illtreated, whether she is unable to maintain herself and whether she is entitled to get maintenance from the opposite party and the quantum thereof. In that connection, all the findings were recorded in favour of the opposite party. In other words, learned J.M.F.C. held that opposite. party is the legally married wife of the petitioner, she has been deserted since October, 1988 and thereafter petitioner has married for the second time and though the opposite party is working and earning as Anganbadi worker, that amount of Rs. 500/- is not sufficient to maintain her livelihood and that petitioner has sufficient means to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- towards monthly maintenance and accordingly allowed the petition for maintenance directing the petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance with effect from the date of order i.e. 19.4.1994. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued vehemently that learned J. M.F.C. has failed to properly appreciate the evidence in record relating to the factum of marriage. In view of series of contradictions relating to the manner in which the marriage was performed in the temple, the evidence of P.Ws. has become unreliable and that aspect was not properly considered by the learned J. M.F.C. In that context, he relied upon the case of Kshitish Chandra Mishra Vs. Sara Sahu. In that case after assessing the evidence, this Court found that evidence tendered from the side of the wife was full of contradictions and tell tale circumstance which did not inspire confidence of the Court to accept her (opposite party) case regarding the temple marriage. 7. Further relying upon the cases of Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another, and Kshitish Chandra Mishra (supra), learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that a wife means a legally married wife whose marriage was performed in accordance with the personal law governing to the parties. He argued that this aspect was not at all discussed or decided by learned lower Court. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another, and Kshitish Chandra Mishra (supra), learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that a wife means a legally married wife whose marriage was performed in accordance with the personal law governing to the parties. He argued that this aspect was not at all discussed or decided by learned lower Court. He also relied upon the case of Pankaj Naik ' Padmalochan Naik v. Mamta Naik (1993) 6 O.C.R. 465 to rely upon the ratio that there must be sufficient evidence that both the parties were widely accepted in the society as husband and wife and in that respect the evidence of petitioner as well as opposite party should be equally evaluated. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that in this case evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 are contradictory regarding the location and situation of the temple, the manner of installation of the deity and the date of journey and the date of marriage. In that respect, learned J.M.F.C. has not at all considered this contradiction and blindly accepted the evidence of the opposite party and in that context did not consider the relevant evidence adduced from the side of the petitioner. He further argued that opposite party has failed to prove marriage between them and therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. In addition to that he argued that when opposite party is an earning woman, she cannot be regarded as a lady in distress or destitute or vagrancy and therefore she cannot be awarded maintenance. 8. Learned Counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, argued that in the absence of any illegality or perversity committed by the Trial Court in appreciating evidence on record, it is not desirable for the Revisional Court to reassess the evidence to give it a fresh look. He further argued that evidence in record proves the necessary particulars and the facts and circumstances leading to the marriage and thereafter separation between the parties. He argued that minor discrepancies in the evidence cannot be regarded as fatal because the opposite party and her witnesses deposed about the fact about six years after the date of marriage and that they had gone to that temple only for once and on the occasion of that marriage. He argued that minor discrepancies in the evidence cannot be regarded as fatal because the opposite party and her witnesses deposed about the fact about six years after the date of marriage and that they had gone to that temple only for once and on the occasion of that marriage. Such minor contradictions are non-consequential because of other relevant facts and circumstances available in the record to prove that claim of marriage by the opposite party is not a creation out of imagination, but it is supported with background facts. Accordingly, he argued that man may lie, but circumstances never be lie. 9. Learned Counsel for the opposite party further argued that regarding proof of marriage is a proceeding u/s 125 of the Code, the standard of proof required is not as high as it is in a civil proceeding and in that view of the matter the opposite party has discharged her burden to not only prove factum of marriage, but subsequent conduct of living as husband and wife and thereafter the cruel act of the petitioner in deserting her and inflicting constant ill-treatment one way or the other. In that connection he relied upon the case of Mina Kumari Dei v. Sahadeb Mallik 64 (1987) C.L.T. 380 Nrusingha Chandra Sahoo v. Sukanti Sahoo 1990 (3) O.C.R. 270, Anupama Pradhan Vs. Sultan Pradhan Dukhia Naik Vs. Basanti Dei and Another, and Naba Chandra Jena v. State of Orissa & Anr. 81 (1996) C.L.T. 29. 10. He also argued that a meagre income of Rs. 500/- for a working woman remaining away from her husband and parents' house is merely nothing to sustain the day to day life and therefore when the petitioner has the legal and moral obligation to maintain the opposite party and he has the capacity to pay the maintenance, petitioner cannot shirk from that responsibility. 11. 500/- for a working woman remaining away from her husband and parents' house is merely nothing to sustain the day to day life and therefore when the petitioner has the legal and moral obligation to maintain the opposite party and he has the capacity to pay the maintenance, petitioner cannot shirk from that responsibility. 11. In view of the aforesaid argument advanced from the side of the petitioner regarding improper appreciation of evidence on the factum of marriage evidence in record is perused notwithstanding the settled legal position (from the above cited decision of both the parties), that in a proceeding u/s 125 of the Code which is summary in nature though strict proof of marriage and marriage rites are not required to be proved by woman claiming to be the wife, yet it is the duty of the Court to find out if the evidence available in record is sufficient to record a finding that such woman has proved to be the wife of the person whom she claims to be her husband and against whom she puts a claim of maintenance. 12. On perusal of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 vis-a-vis evidence of O.P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the findings recorded by learned Magistrate, this Court does not find any illegality, erroneous approach or improper assessment of evidence having been made by the lower Court. View taken by learned Magistrate in accepting the evidence in record as regards the proof of the factum of marriage cannot be regarded as illegal or unreasonable because such evidence is not infested with either improbabilities or falsehood. Indeed, there exists certain contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 while they described the temple of Goddess Tarini where the marriage took place. P.W. 1 described the temple to be located near the forest, P.W. 3 described the idol having been placed on a 'Singasan' and of the height of 2 to 3 ft. and that temple being situated by the side of the public road and P.W. 2 stating that the temple is by the side of the State Highway. On the other hand, O.P.W. 1 who had gone to that place on a pilgrimage describes that there is no 'Singhasan' for the Goddess and the head is only worshipped and that it is by the side of the State Highway. On the other hand, O.P.W. 1 who had gone to that place on a pilgrimage describes that there is no 'Singhasan' for the Goddess and the head is only worshipped and that it is by the side of the State Highway. Keeping in view the sequence in which P.W. 1 had gone to that place and the gap between such visit and the date of deposition those difference in description of the temple was not regarded by learned Magistrate fatal or the evidence of such witness to be untrue in their entirety. In the considered opinion of this Court view taken by the learned Magistrate in appreciating the evidence in that manner cannot be regarded as perverse or illegal. As it appears from the evidence in record opposite party went to the temple alongwith her father, her husband (the petitioner) and P.W. 2 for the purpose of a marriage to give effect to their love affairs only because there was opposition from the side of the parents of the petitioner. Though in his evidence petitioner has denied to any such resistence from his parents side, but in that respect the circumstantial evidence existing in record proves him to be a Her in that respect. Under the aforesaid circumstance opposite party could not have taken precaution to remember the temple and the deity in a graphic manner so as to reproduce the same in an anticipated matrimonial proceeding or in a proceeding u/s 125 of the Code. At that moment hardly she could have any apprehension. On the other hand, at that time she must have all the assurance in the world of getting the person of her choice as her life partner and the feeling thereof and the rituals to be followed for the marriage might not have made her to remember in details the location, situation and the surroundings of the temple. By not remembering the temple in that manner, it cannot be said that she has not visited that place. In other words, even if what the O.P.W. 1 speaks about the temple is correct then also it is not contradictory to the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 regarding the location of the temple. So far as the description of the deities inside the temple. So far as the description of the deities inside the temple premises is concerned, the discrepancy, as stated above, is non-consequential. 13. 2 and 3 regarding the location of the temple. So far as the description of the deities inside the temple. So far as the description of the deities inside the temple premises is concerned, the discrepancy, as stated above, is non-consequential. 13. So far as the other aspect of the evidence regarding the factum of marriage is concerned, it is not necessary to go in detail inasmuch as learned J.M.F.C. has taken care of all such evidence to record his findings regarding the factum of marriage in favour of the opposite party. In other words, the aforesaid contradiction upon which petitioner banks upon is neither substantial nor crucial to demolish the case of marriage in temple as stated by the opposite party and in that respect of appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court and the findings recorded thereof in favour of the opposite party is found to be acceptable which proves the relationship. 14. So far as the rites and rituals relating to the marriage is concerned, in the case of Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav (supra) the facts before the Apex Court was completely different inasmuch as there the claim of maintenance was made by the petitioner as the second wife and while discussing on that aspect, the Apex Court held that personal law cannot be altogether ignored while considering the question of status of a woman as the wife i.e., the legally married wife of a person. In the case of Kshitish Chandra Mishra (supra) this Court found evidence in that case regarding a temple marriage was highly insufficient and improbable and that is how it was held that a mere plea of marriage advanced by a claimant cannot be blindly accepted overlooking the contradiction. Similarly, in the case of Pankaj Naik (supra) this Court found that learned Magistrate while accepting the case of a temple marriage completely lost sight of the evidence adduced from the side of the opposite party and jumped to the conclusion regarding the marital status. So far as the present case is concerned, the discussion of evidence as above goes to show that evidence in this case is sufficiently available to accept the status of the opposite party as the wife of the petitioner and in that respect evidence from the side of the petitioner in no way dismantles that claim made by the opposite party. Apart from that, in the above cited decisions from the side of the opposite party, it has been reiterated time and again by this Court that in a proceeding u/s 125 of the Code, strict proof of the rites and rituals to prove the marital status is not necessary and that if the parties have entered into the marital relationship in one of the accepted social norm, i.e. either by Sastrik marriage, Registry marriage or temple marriage and thereafter they lived as husband and wife and accepted as such by the society then that is sufficient proof of the marriage and the status between the parties. In view of the above position of law and the facts existing in the record, the contention of the petitioner challenging the status of the opposite party as not his wife is legally not sustainable and findings recorded in that respect by learned Magistrate is upheld. 15. So far as the grant of maintenance is concerned, opposite party has admitted to be working as an Anganbadi worker and getting salary of Rs. 500/-, but learned Magistrate after taking into consideration her circumstances as well as the necessities has granted a sum of Rs. 300/-. Petitioner has not led any evidence to prove that income of Rs. 500/- of the opposite party is sufficient to sustain her livelihood. On the other hand, opposite party has stated in her evidence that due to insufficiency of income she is unable to sustain her livelihood. In that respect, she was not at all cross-examined. Thus, learned Magistrate was justified in granting the monthly maintenance ' of Rs. 300/- in favour of the opposite party. 16. Both the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner having failed, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed