JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---This petition arises from the judgment and order dated 27-12-1990 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision Application No. 107 of 1990. By the impugned order, the Revisional Court has set aside the order of maintenance dated 31-3-1990 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kannad ordering the respondent No. 1 to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- to the petitioner with effect from 17-10-1988. 2. While assailing the impugned order, it is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that there was no fair opportunity available to the petitioner to meet the case putforth by the respondent No. 1 in the course of evidence, as the same was not pleaded in the reply to the application for maintenance filed by the petitioner. In spite of the fact that various pleas taken by the respondent No. 1 being proved to be false and that the trial Court has held on analysis of the evidence that the petitioner and respondent No. 1 have resided as wife and husband for a considerable time, the revisional Court merely because there is no documentary evidence regarding the marriage between the parties has set aside the order of the trial Court and dismissed the application for maintenance filed by the petitioner. The interference by the Revisional Court in the order of the trial Court on the sole ground of absence of documentary evidence regarding the marriage is patently illegal and also warrants interference by this Court. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 has stated that there being no cogent evidence placed on record about the marriage between the parties considering the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (Yamunabai Anatrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav)1, reported in 1988(1) Bom.C.R. 541 in the absence of valid marriage being established by the petitioner, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment of the Revisional Court. He further submitted that the certified copy of the Hindu Marriage Petition No. 122 of 1986 for divorce clearly discloses that the respondent No. 1 was married to a different lady prior to 1986 and, therefore, the case of the petitioner that she married with the respondent No. 1 in February 1988 could not be believed. 3. He further submitted that the certified copy of the Hindu Marriage Petition No. 122 of 1986 for divorce clearly discloses that the respondent No. 1 was married to a different lady prior to 1986 and, therefore, the case of the petitioner that she married with the respondent No. 1 in February 1988 could not be believed. 3. Perusal of the judgment of the trial Court discloses that the said Court, on analysis of the evidence on record, had arrived at a clear finding that the petitioner had proved the marriage and she was residing with the respondent No. 1 and that she is the married wife of the respondent No. 1 and that the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 as wife and husband was still in existence. The judgment of the trial Court further discloses that the pleas taken by the respondent No. 1 on oath in the course of evidence have been proved to be false including his contention that the petitioner was a married wife of one Fakira. On perusal of the entire material on records, the trial Court has held that the petitioner had never married to the said witness. This witness also disclosed that his wife's name was Nirmala but she was daughter of one Seetaram whereas the petitioner is daughter of one Mhatarji. The Revisional Court, on the other hand, has observed that the evidence of Fakira that his wife was daughter of Seetaram does not find any support and that there is no sufficient evidence to establish that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent No. 1, and therefore has set aside the order of the trial Court. The finding of the Revisional Court that the evidence of Fakira that his wife was daughter of Seetaram does not find any support is not only arbitrary but is perverse. It is not understood how the Court can arrive at such a finding when the person claiming to be husband of a particular lady had deposed on oath that his wife is daughter of particular person and there is no other evidence placed on record to disbelieve the said testimony. It is not understood how the Court can arrive at such a finding when the person claiming to be husband of a particular lady had deposed on oath that his wife is daughter of particular person and there is no other evidence placed on record to disbelieve the said testimony. As regards the finding of absence of cogent evidence to establish the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 as the wife and the husband, it is pertinent to note that the Revisional Court has nowhere interfered with the finding of the trial Court that both the parties had resided together and had maintained the relationship of the wife and the husband respectively. Without interfering in the said finding and without holding that the said finding is not borne out from the record, it was highly improper for the Revisional Court to draw inference about absence of any evidence as regards the relation between the parties. In fact, the testimony of the petitioner clearly discloses that the parties had stayed together as the wife and the husband. The witnesses of the petitioner have also supported the claim of the petitioner about ceremony of marriage and the respondent No. 1 has not been able to disprove the said evidence. In the circumstances, therefore, there was no scope for interference in the finding of fact arrived at by the trial Court about the existence of relationship between the parties. 4. As regards the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav (supra) relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, it is to be noted that the Apex Court, in a recent judgment in the matter of (Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prav Dixit)2, reported in 2000(5) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)731has held that the validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceedings under section 125 Cri.P.C. is to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties. The standard of proof of marriage in such proceedings is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under section 494 I.P.C. If the claimant in proceedings under section 125 of the Code succeeds in showing that she and the respondent have lived together as the husband and the wife, the Court can presume that they are legally wedded spouses, and in such a situation, the party who denies the marital status has to rebut the presumption. While arriving at the said finding, the Apex Court has considered its earlier decision in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav and has observed that the judgment in the said case, it was contended that at the time of marriage essential ceremonies were not performed. The Apex Court in Dwarika Prasad`s case was dealing with the matter wherein the parties had married in the temple of Lord Jagannath at Nayagarh in the presence of witnesses and at that time the lady was in advanced stage of pregnancy and within 3 to 4 days she had given birth to a child. In the proceedings under section 125 of the Cri.P.C., the husband had denied the pre-marital sexual relation with the lady and had asserted the he was forced to undergo some sort of a marriage with the lady at the point of a knife, that he had not given consent to the marriage and that he was forced to exchange garlands with the lady. Believing the case of the lady, the Magistrate had held the marriage to be valid and legal. But in revision, the Additional Session Judge had held that there was no valid marriage in the eyes of law. The facts of that case are almost similar to the facts of the case in hand except in the case in hand there was no issue out of the relationship between the parties. Being so the decision in the matter of Yamunabai, relied upon by the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 is of no help and the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Dwarika Prasad. 5. In the result, therefore, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed and set aside. 5. In the result, therefore, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed and set aside. At the request of the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and considering the fact that the matter was pending for a considerable period before this Court, the order of grant of maintenance shall be treated to be effective from the month of November 2000 subject to payment of lump sum amount of Rs. 4000/- by the respondent to the petitioner wife within a period of four weeks from today. The monthly maintenance allowance shall be paid by 10th of each month. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Rule made absolute. -----