JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — The petitioner in this revision challenges the judgment and order dated 30.3.1999 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Criminal Proceeding No. 100 of 1997 allowing maintenance @ Rs. 350/- per month to the opposite party in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. Facts leading to initiation of the case are that the parties belong to ‘Saura’ caste and marriage between the peti¬tioner and the opposite party took place on 17.11.1995 according to Hindu rituals. It is alleged by the opposite party that two months after marriage the petitioner tortured and assaulted her demanding Rupees ten thousand. Since parents of the opposite party were not able to meet the demand, it is further alleged that she was assaulted on 1.4.1997 by the petitioner by means of a knife. It is further alleged that in January, 1996 the petitioner drove out the opposite party from matrimonial house and since then the opposite party is residing in her parental house. On the basis of the allegation of the opposite party, a case under Sections 498-A/324 of the Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has also been initiated against the peti¬tioner. On these allegations the opposite party claimed mainte¬nance @ Rs. 500/- per month. The petitioner denied the marriage and further alleged that the opposite party is a lady of immoral character and being instigated by some antisocial elements, she has filed the case for maintenance claiming to be wife of the petitioner and all other allegations made in the petition were denied. It was also alleged by the present petitioner that he is a young man and the opposite party is much older than him and there could not be any marriage between them. 3. Both the parties adduced evidence before the Court and on consideration of the evidence available on record, learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela found the opposite party to be the legally married wife of the present petitioner and accepting the allegations made in the petition allowed maintenance @ Rs. 350/- per month. 4. 3. Both the parties adduced evidence before the Court and on consideration of the evidence available on record, learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela found the opposite party to be the legally married wife of the present petitioner and accepting the allegations made in the petition allowed maintenance @ Rs. 350/- per month. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the marriage was disputed it was obligatory on the part of the opposite party to prove marriage in accordance with law and in absence of any such proof the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela committed an illegality in finding that there was a valid marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party. According to the learned counsel no evidence of marriage has been placed before the Court and whatever evidence has been led are insufficient to come to a conclusion that there was a valid mar¬riage between the petitioner and the opposite party. On the quan¬tum of maintenance, learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a snake charmer and hardly earns money and it is not possible to pay maintenance @ Rs. 350/- per month to the opposite party. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, on the other hand, submitted in a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. strict proof of marriage is not necessary and evidence has been led before the Court to prove marriage and the same has been rightly accepted by the Judge, Family Court. Since maintenance granted is negligible, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that this Court should refrain from interfering with the impugned order. 5. In order to appreciate contention of the learned coun¬sel for both parties, it is necessary to first see as to whether marriage has been proved in accordance with law or not. Standard of proof of marriage in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been the subject matter of discussion in several decisions of this Court. In the case of Chakradhar Pradhan v. Asali Dei and another, reported in 1985 (I) OLR 589, while dealing with the Gandharv form of marriage by exchange of garlands, this Court considering the evidence led before the trial Court held that strict proof of the formalities of a valid marriage is not neces¬sary in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In another deci¬sion in the case of Smt. Radhas Mohapatra v. Dr. Balakrushna Dash, reported in 2002 (Supp.) OLR 173 this Court held as follows : “It is not disputed at the Bar that to sustain a claim of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the lady claiming mainte¬nance has to prove her status as the wife of the person from whom she claims maintenance. It is also not disputed at the Bar that a technical approach should not be made to prove the rites and customs which are provided in the personal law of the parties while deciding the issue on marriage. In that context, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the ratio in the case of Inderjit Kaur v. Union of India and others :1990 (1) Supreme Court Cases 344 : 1990 (1) SCC (Cri.) 132. Keeping in view the present dispute, this Court finds no relevan¬cy of the said ratio to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Similarly, the case of Rajathi v. G. Ganesan, 1999 (3) Crimes 189 (SC), which the petitioner relies, is found not applicable to facts and circumstances of the present case. He also draws the attention of the Court to the cases of Venna Devi v. Ashok Kumar Mandal, 2001 (1) Divorce and Matrimonial Cases 177 : Anupama Pradhan v. Sulthan Pradhan, 1991 (II) OLR 297; Narayan Hadipa v. Smt. Jayasudha Nagabansha @ Hadipa, 88 (1999) CLT 244 : Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit, 89 (2000) CLT 167 and Nrusingha Charan Sahoo v. Sukanti Sahoo 32 (1990) OJD 403 (Criminal). Rest of the decisions noted in the memo of citations (written note of submission) have not been placed before this Court on the ground that they are not relevant. Rest of the decisions noted in the memo of citations (written note of submission) have not been placed before this Court on the ground that they are not relevant. On a consistent reading of all the above referred decisions, it appears that the salient principle, which has been time and again enunciated by different High Courts and the apex Court, is that a strict proof of marriage in accordance with the Hindu rites or the Personal Law may not be insisted upon while dealing with a case under section 125 Cr.P.C. The minimum proof which is required to prove the status if acceptable on record to believe the relationship, then the case should be adjudicated accordingly and even a case of non-proof of any rituals but long living as husband and wife and accepted as such in the society should be regarded as sufficient proof to consider the status of the lady as the wife of the opposite party for the purpose of considera¬tion of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.”. The Apex Court in the case of Sumitra Devi v. Bhikan Choud¬hary, reported in AIR 1985 S.C. 765 while dealing with an appli¬cation under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has observed as follows: “We are impressed by the fact that the respondent had not seriously disputed the fact of marriage and had taken the stand that such marriage was void being vitiated by fraud and suppres¬sion of material facts as also for non-performance of religious rites. The Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court have adopted a technical approach while considering the question of marriage. There is no doubt that in order that there may be a valid marriage according to Hindu law, certain religious rites have to be performed. Invoking the fire and performing Saptapadi around the sacred fire have been considered by this Court to be two of the basic requirements for a traditional marriage. It is equally true that there can be a marriage acceptable in law according to customs which do not insist on performance of such rites as referred to above and marriages of this type give rise to legal relationship which law accepts. The Additional Sessions Judge as also the learned single Judge of the High Court did not refer to the fact that for about a decade the parties had lived together. The Additional Sessions Judge as also the learned single Judge of the High Court did not refer to the fact that for about a decade the parties had lived together. Public records including voters' lists described them as husband and wife and competent witnesses of the village of the wife as also the husband had supported the factum of mar¬riage. Witnesses have also spoken about the reputation of the appellant being known in the locality as the wife of the respond¬ent. These facts should not have been totally overlooked while considering the case of marriage. It is possible that on account of the lawyer’s mistake the appellant’s witnesses have not re¬ferred to the religious rites which might have been performed at the time of marriage. It is equally possible that the learned Magistrate while recording the evidence has not specifically recorded the details and has only indicated that witnesses have spoken to the fact of marriage. Since the form of marriage has not been found and traditional marriage according to Hindu law requires performance of certain religious rites, we consider it proper in the peculiar facts of the case to remit the matter to the learned Magistrate for a fresh inquiry at which apart from the evidence already on record both sides should be entitled to lead further evidence particularly in support of their respective stands relating to the factum of marriage”. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that strict proof of marriage is not necessary in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and evidence is to be led before the Court to show that the marriage had taken place and both parties lived as husband and wife. 6. Now coming to the evidence led before the Court, it appears that the opposite party examined herself as P.W.1. In her deposition she has stated that two to three years back in the month of Margasira she married the petitioner according to Hindu rituals and both of them stayed together as husband and wife for a period of about two months. In cross-examination, though she admitted that she does not remember the date, month or year of marriage, but she stated that it was a Monday and there was ‘Homo’ during marriage. P.W.2 is the grand-father of the present petitioner. In cross-examination, though she admitted that she does not remember the date, month or year of marriage, but she stated that it was a Monday and there was ‘Homo’ during marriage. P.W.2 is the grand-father of the present petitioner. He in his evidence has stated that about two and half years back the marriage took place according to the caste and custom. He also stated that ‘Homo’ was performed by Chandan Saura and marriage was held in the night. A year after the marriage the opposite party came to her parental house with bleeding injury and a case was instituted against the petitioner. Nothing has been brought out in cross-examination to disbelieve the witness. P.W.3 is the uncle of the opposite party. He has stated in evidence that he had given the opposite party in marriage to the petitioner about two years back and the marriage was performed in the night. Nothing has been brought out in cross-examination to disbelieve him. P.W.4 is another witness who has stated that underneath a Jack fruit tree the marriage of the petitioner and the opposite party was solemnized by ringing of bells and conch. He has also stated that he kept the right palm of the opposite party on the right palm of the petitioner and after solemnization of the marriage in the morning both the petitioner and the oppo¬site party went to matrimonial house of the opposite party. Nothing has also been brought out in cross-examination to disbe¬lieve this witness. So far as evidence from the side of the present petitioner is concerned, it appears that the present petitioner examined himself as O.P.W.1 and he has simply denied the marriage in his evidence. All other witnesses examined on behalf of the present petitioner have only denied the marriage and have also denied suggestions regarding marriage. On examination of the evidence as stated above, it appears that some evidence has been led on behalf of the opposite party to prove marriage and it has also been found from evidence that both the petitioner and the opposite party lived as husband and wife for sometime. There is no reason to discard the evidence regarding marriage. One independent witness has been examined to show that marriage had taken place and some rituals as stated by the said witnesses had taken place. There is no reason to discard the evidence regarding marriage. One independent witness has been examined to show that marriage had taken place and some rituals as stated by the said witnesses had taken place. P.W.3 who is the uncle of the opposite party has specifically stated that he had done ‘Kanya¬dan’ in the marriage and P.W.2 who is the grand-father of the present petitioner had supported claim of marriage. In view of such nature of evidence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Judge, Family Court in granting mainte¬nance. 7. So far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, even accepting case of the petitioner that he was a ‘Snake Charmer’, monthly income assessed at Rs. 1200/- per month does not appear to be excessive and grant of maintenance @ Rs. 350/- per month is also not excessive. I do not find any merit in the revision and the same is dis¬missed. Revision dismissed.