Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that pursuant to the order dated February 12, 2004, the entire amount of arrears of maintenance awarded by the courts below has been deposited by the petitioner and thereafter also he has been paying maintenance regularly. Before adverting to the merits of the case, the trial court is directed to release the amount of arrears of maintenance in favour of the respondent herein, forthwith. 2. In this petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. , prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated April 16, 2003 (Annexure P-1) whereby the judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatinda has granted maintenance of rs.500/- per month to the respondent, as well as the order dated November 21, 2003 (Annexure P-2) dismissing the petitioners revision petition against the afore-mentioned order of maintenance. 3. Both the orders have been assailed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the relationship of husband and wife between them has not been proved. It is contended that even as per the case of the respondent, only a kareva marriage was performed and since the ingredients of kareva marriage have not been proved, the petitioner is not liable to pay any maintenance. 4. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently contends that on the basis of evidence on record, there is a concurrent finding of fact that kareva marriage was performed between the parties and such like customary marriage is validly accepted amongst them. It is, thus, contended that the finding of fact in relation tot he marriage need not be tinkered with by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 Cr. P. C. 5. On perusal of the impugned orders, it is evident that both the parties led evidence in support of their respective plea on the issue of marriage between them. Accepting the respondents version, coupled with the documents Ex. A1 and C-2 wherein the petitioner himself has admitted the respondent to be his wife, both the courts have concurred that the performance of kareva marriage between the parties stands established. Since the parties are governed by customary law where kareva marriage is accepted as a valid marriage, no exception to the conclusions drawn by the courts below can be made. Since the parties are governed by customary law where kareva marriage is accepted as a valid marriage, no exception to the conclusions drawn by the courts below can be made. Faced with this situation, Learned Counsel for the petitioner further argues that the respondent is already drawing pension as a senior citizen and her son has also got employment during the interregnum, therefore, the burden of maintaining the respondent is liable to be shared by her son as well. According to him, the respondent is owner in possession of 54 kanal 4 marla land along with her son which too amounts to be a sufficient source of income. 6. As far as the afore-mentioned contention is concerned, it can be seen that no such argument was raised by the petitioner before the courts below presumably for the reason that the respondents son might not be employed at the relevant time. However, these issues, which are required to be determined on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties, cannot be gone into in these summary proceedings under section 482 Cr. P. C. Consequently, this petition is disposed of with liberty tot he petitioner to seek variation in the order granting maintenance, if so advised.