JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. Smti Mina Rani Nath (for short 'Mina'), the Respondent herein, approached the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dharmanagar, North Tripura by instituting a proceeding under Section125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance for herself and her minor daughter Smti Moumita Nath (for short 'Moumita') from Shri Tajendra Kumar Nath (for short 'Tajendra'), the Petitioner herein, with whom she claimed to have been legally married on 22.4.1982 and who fathered Moumita. Her prayer for maintenance having been rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, she preferred a revision petition, which was registered as Criminal Motion No. 3(1) of 2002 in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. The said court allowed the revision petition setting aside the judgment and order of the learned court below with a direction to the Petitioner husband herein to pay Rs. 1,200/- per month for the Respondent wife herein and Rs. 1,000/- per month for their daughter w.e.f. 1.4.1998. A further direction was given to pay the arrear amount of maintenance in 36 equal installments along with regular amount of maintenance of Rs. 2,200/- per month for both the wife and the daughter. Aggrieved, the Petitioner husband has questioned the correctness and legality of the said order of learned Additional Sessions Judge in the present Criminal Revision petition. 2. Before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mina claimed that Tajendra married her on 22.4.1982 in the house of Satyendra Nath (for short 'Satyendra') where she and her parents were living as tenants in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. A large number of people of that locality including 50 members of the groom party attended the marriage ceremony, which was performed by a priest. Satyendra, in whose house the marriage was solemnized and other witnesses have been examined as P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 all of whom supported her claim about the marriage between the parties. But after the marriage when the couple went to the house of the groom, his parents refused to accept them on the ground that bride's parents did not pay the dowry of Rs. 10,000/- as per their demand. The couple had to come back to the house of Satyendra and lived there for about two months. But after the marriage when the couple went to the house of the groom, his parents refused to accept them on the ground that bride's parents did not pay the dowry of Rs. 10,000/- as per their demand. The couple had to come back to the house of Satyendra and lived there for about two months. On 14.6.1982 they appeared before the learned Executive Magistrate, Dharmanagar and swore an affidavit in support and proof of their marriage. Thereafter, the couple went to Karimganj, a town in Assam and started to lead their conjugal life in a rented house. She became pregnant in due course and on 21.8.1990, the husband brought her to her father's house at Padmapur, Dharmanagar. On 21.10.1990, she gave birth to a daughter, Moumita. The husband gradually distanced himself from her and the baby and stopped to look after them. She came to know later that Tajendra married again on 12.3.1986 during the subsistence of his marriage with her, keeping her quite in dark. The information that Tajendra was living with the second wife in his own house shocked her and she at once went to his house to assert her right where she was badly treated by the inmates of the husband including mother, brother and second wife of Tajendra. They abused her in filthy language, assaulted her and drove her away. Since then she along with her daughter had taken shelter in the house of her brother. As she had no means of livelihood, she approached the learned court below for maintenance from Tajendra, who is the owner of Swapanlok Studio at Kalibari Road, Dharmanagar earning six/seven thousand rupees per month. She claimed Rs. 1,200/- per month for herself and Rs. 1,000/- per month for her daughter as maintenance. 3. Tajendra, however, contested the claim of Mina denying his marriage with her. On the contrary, he claimed that he had married one Bina Rani Nath on 12.3.1981, prior to the alleged marriage with the Petitioner and a son was born to them on 3.6.1987. On 1.10.1993 a daughter was also born to them. He claimed that Mina, her brothers and father being close neighbours attended his marriage function like Chaturthamangal. They also attended the Annaprasan ceremony of his son. On 1.10.1993 a daughter was also born to them. He claimed that Mina, her brothers and father being close neighbours attended his marriage function like Chaturthamangal. They also attended the Annaprasan ceremony of his son. It is the grievance of Tajendra that with a view to harass and humiliate him and his family members, two brothers of Mina had assaulted him on one occasion following which Dharmanagar P.S. Case No. 8/98 under Section 326 I.P.C. was registered. The marriage having been totally denied, the learned Judicial Magistrate was called upon to decide whether there existed a prima facie case of marriage between the parties to justify an order of maintenance in favour of the Petitioner before him. 4. The Petitioner wife in the said proceeding before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class examined herself and four witnesses including the landlord of the house where the marriage had taken place. All of them categorically and unequivocally stated that the marriage between the two was performed in the house of Satyendra (P.W.2) at Padmapur, where large numbers of invites were present. The marriage was conducted by a priest though his name was not disclosed by the witnesses. The marriage was the culmination of a love affair and after the marriage when the parents of Tajendra refused to accept them, the couple had lived in the house of P.W.2 for two months and thereafter, they had gone to Karimganj and started to live mere in a rented house. The witnesses further supported her version that on 21.8.1990 she was brought to Dharmanagar when she was at the advance stage pregnancy and on 21.10.1990 the daughter Moumita was born. The birth certificate of Moumita issued by Dharmanagar Nagar Panchayat authority showed Tajendra as the father though the name of the mother was wrongly mentioned as Bina Nath in place of Mina Nath. An affidavit was sworn to the effect that Bina and Mina are one and same person. 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the prayer for maintenance after discarding the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the Petitioner wife. The said court observed that though the witnesses stated about the performance of the marriage ceremony as per the Hindu rites and customs, conducted by a priest of the locality, neither the Petitioner wife nor her witnesses specifically stated about performance of Saptapadi, which is an essential ceremony for a valid Hindu marriage. The said court observed that though the witnesses stated about the performance of the marriage ceremony as per the Hindu rites and customs, conducted by a priest of the locality, neither the Petitioner wife nor her witnesses specifically stated about performance of Saptapadi, which is an essential ceremony for a valid Hindu marriage. As none of the witnesses did mention the name of the priest nor the mother of the Petitioner wife was examined, a doubt had arisen in the mind of the learned court about validity of the alleged marriage. The joint photograph of mina and Tajendra, the affidavit by the two before an Executive Magistrate that they were husband and wife and the birth certificate of Moumita showing Tajendra as the father failed to satisfy the learned Magistrate about existence of a prima facie evidence of marriage. As no witness to testify about their stay at Karimganj was examined by the Petitioner wife, the learned Magistrate held that the chapter of their alleged marital life at Karimganj was to be treated as totally closed and their alleged stay for two months in the house of P.W. 2 could not, according to him, give rise to any presumption that there was a valid marriage justifying the claim for maintenance. Placing reliance on a decision of the Madras High Court reported in AIR 1962 Mad 141 , the learned Magistrate came to hold that no presumption of paternity of Moumita can arise as it could not be proved that the Petitioner wife was exclusively in the monogamy of the opposite-party only. The relevant part of the said decision of the Madras High Court is quoted below: No presumption of law can arise with regard to the paternity of such infants born out of the lawful wedlock, unless it is established beyond doubt that the woman was the exclusively kept mistress of the man and that the relationship was virtually one of monogamy, though there might not have been a legal marriage. As far as we can gather, name of the father must have been furnished by the Respondent herself. That is not evidence of paternity, being a unilateral statement of an interested party. 6. As far as we can gather, name of the father must have been furnished by the Respondent herself. That is not evidence of paternity, being a unilateral statement of an interested party. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge disagreed with the findings of the learned Magistrate giving much emphasis on the settled legal position with regard to a claim of maintenance under Section 125of the Code of Criminal Procedure that what is required for granting maintenance is only a prima facie proof of marriage, not a detailed inquiry, which is normally to be done by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. This legal position has been reiterated in a decision of this Court, reported in 1981 Cr.L.J. 674, which was relied on by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The relevant part of the said decision is gainfully reproduced below: A woman who comes in the life of a man, gives herself to the man, takes the family life of the man and the man uses her as such, recognizes her as his wife, must come within the fold of the term "wife" absence of ceremonial marriage notwithstanding. Acceptance of a woman as a wife, declaration of the status directly or indirectly and acceptance of the status by the' woman are enough to bring her within the purview of Section 125. It has been observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the learned Magistrate, while rejecting the prayer for maintenance, entered in to detailed inquiry about validity of the marriage converting himself into a civil court, which is against the intended purpose of Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. Referring to a decision of the Karnataka High Court, reported in 1987 Cri.LJ 677, in which it was held when the validity of a marriage is in dispute in a proceeding under Section 125Code of Criminal Procedure because of violation of certain conditions referred to in Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Magistrate should not convert himself into a civil court and sit like a civil court to decide such question, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the materials available on record, both oral and documentary, are enough to establish that there is a good prima facie case of valid marriage between the two, which satisfy the test of Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure for granting maintenance. After taking such a view, the revision petition was allowed setting aside the judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate as noticed above. 7. I have heard the learned Counsels for both the parties. 8. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner strenuously argued that valid marriage is a sine qua non for disposing a claim of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and what the learned Judicial Magistrate had done was only an exercise to find whether there existed any prima facie case of marriage. The end result of the inquiry conducted by the said Magistrate was that the Petitioner wife before him failed to establish her marital status, which disentitled her to get maintenance from the opposite-party. Questioning the jurisdiction of a revisional court in interfering with the findings of the trial court, Mr. Bhowmik sought to derive support for his submission from a decision of the Bombay High Court in Smt. Anandibai Dattajirao Patil v. Dattajirao Dhondiram Patil reported in 1999 Cri.L.J. 1061. In that case, the marriage between the Petitioner and the opposite-party was not in dispute. The factual position leading to the strained relation and claim for maintenance was a second marriage contracted by the husband prompting the wife to file a petition under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. The husband, however, took up a stand that the Petitioner was living in adultery, which allegation was not found to be correct by the learned Magistrate, who awarded maintenance of Rs. 250/- per month. Aggrieved by the said order, the Respondent husband filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. The said order of learned Additional Sessions Judge was called in question before the Bombay High Court and it was found from the record that the learned Additional Sessions Judge made an exercise for setting aside the judgment of the learned Magistrate only on surmises and conjectures. It was in that premises the Bombay High Court observed and held that the revisional court's jurisdiction to interfere is called for only where the original authority's findings became perverse or where the relevant materials have not been taken into account. 9. Mr. It was in that premises the Bombay High Court observed and held that the revisional court's jurisdiction to interfere is called for only where the original authority's findings became perverse or where the relevant materials have not been taken into account. 9. Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, advanced a robust argument that the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate is perverse inasmuch as he has ignored totally the settled legal proposition that in a case for maintenance under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure no strict proof of marriage or elaborate inquiry with regard thereto is necessary and what is required is only a prima facie proof of marriage. By disregarding this well settled canon of law, the learned Magistrate endeavoured into a detailed inquiry about validity of the marriage ignoring the prima facie evidence of an affidavit sworn by the parties as to their marriage, the birth certificate showing the Petitioner herein as father of the baby and oral evidence of the witnesses including the landlord in whose house the marriage had taken place. Thus, the finding of the learned Magistrate can be unhesitatingly said to be a perverse finding, which called for interference by the court of sessions. In support of his submission, learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidut Prava Dixit reported in AIR 1999 SC 3348 , para 6 of that judgment is quoted below: 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant at the time of hearing had not disputed the paternity of the child. Hence, the question is whether the marriage between the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 was valid or invalid? In our view, validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceeding under Section125 Code of Criminal Procedure, is to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties. The standard of proof of marriage in such proceeding is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under Section 494 of the IPC. If the claimant in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code succeeds in showing that she and the Respondent have lived together as husband and wife, the Court can presume that they are legally wedded spouses, and in such a situation, the party who denies the marital status can rebut the presumption. If the claimant in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code succeeds in showing that she and the Respondent have lived together as husband and wife, the Court can presume that they are legally wedded spouses, and in such a situation, the party who denies the marital status can rebut the presumption. Undisputedly, marriage procedure was followed in the temple, that too, in the presence of idol of Lord Jagannath, which is worshipped by both the parties. Appellant contended before the learned Magistrate that the said marriage was performed under duress and at the point of knife, he was required to exchange garlands. That contention is not proved by leading necessary evidence. Once it is admitted that the marriage procedure was followed then it is not necessary to further probe into whether the said procedure was complete as per the Hindu rites in the proceedings under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. It is no longer res integra that a claim of an earlier marriage by the husband in order to deny maintenance to the second wife is required to provide strict proof of the earlier marriage. In Vimala (K) v. Veeraswamy (K) reported in (1991) 2 SCC 375 , the Apex Court held in para 3 as follows: 3. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. When an attempt is made by the husband to negative the claim of the neglected wife depicting her as a kept-mistress on the specious plea that he was already marriage, the court would insist on strict proof of the earlier marriage. The term 'wife' in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, includes a woman who has been divorced by a husband or who has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. The woman not having the legal status of a wife is thus brought within the inclusive definition of the term 'wife' consistent with the objective. However, under the law a second wife whose marriage is void on account of the survival of the first marriage is not a legally wedded wife and is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance under this provision. However, under the law a second wife whose marriage is void on account of the survival of the first marriage is not a legally wedded wife and is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance under this provision. Therefore, the law which disentitles the second wife from receiving maintenance from her husband under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, for the sole reason that the marriage ceremony though performed in the customary form lacks legal sanctity can be applied only when the husband satisfactorily proves the subsistence of a legal and valid marriage particularly when the provision in the Code is a measure of social justice intended to protect women and children. We are unable to find that the Respondent herein has discharged the heavy burden by tendering strict proof of the fact in issue. The High Court failed to consider the standard of proof required and has proceeded on no evidence whatsoever in determining the question against the Appellant. We are, therefore, unable to agree that the Appellant is not entitled to maintenance. 11. From the above discussions, it would be evident that a woman with a baby on her lap approaching the court for maintenance from her negligent husband is not required to provide strict and elaborate proof of her marriage and once she brings on record prima facie proof about a valid marriage, her burden stands discharged and if any plea is taken by the opposite-party that because of his earlier marriage with another woman, she is not entitled to any maintenance, the burden shifts on him to provide strict proof of such earlier marriage. In the case on hand, the Respondent wife herein has examined herself and other witnesses all of whom supported her version of marriage with the Petitioner herein according to Hindu rites and customs conducted by a priest. She also adduced an affidavit sworn by both of them as proof of their marriage, a joint photograph and a birth certificate of their daughter showing the Petitioner herein as the father. She also adduced an affidavit sworn by both of them as proof of their marriage, a joint photograph and a birth certificate of their daughter showing the Petitioner herein as the father. All these oral and documentary evidence are enough to make out a prima facie case of marriage and it has been rightly held by the learned Sessions Judge that it is not correct on the part of the learned Magistrate to take the view that only because saptapadi was not stated to have been performed or the name of the priest was not disclosed or the witness about their living together in Karimganj was not examined, the prima facie case of marriage was not established. It is quite apparent that the learned Magistrate in order to frustrate the claim of the Respondent wife herein converted himself into a civil court by making an exercise about the validity of a Hindu marriage between the parties and thus totally ignored the very intent and purpose of Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, which has been enacted with a view to protect destitute women and children from vagrancy and starvation. The findings of the learned Magistrate are, therefore, perverse inasmuch as the said findings are not based on evidence and materials on record. 12. For the discussions and reasons noted above, this revision petition is found to be devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost. The interim order, passed earlier, in the connected Misc. application stands vacated. Application dismissed