Judgment : The petitioner in this revisional application challenges the impugned judgment and order of maintenance dated March 28, 2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Court at Rampurhat, Birbhum, directing payment of maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,050/- per month to the opposite party/wife, on the ground that the marriage was not a valid one under the Mohammedan law and customs and that the quantum of maintenance is disproportionately high. I have considered the materials on record and have gone through the impugned judgment and order granting maintenance. I find that the learned Magistrate on analysis of evidence has come to a finding that it is the unequivocal evidence of the opposite party/wife that the marriage took place after expiry of iddat period. Such fact has not been rebutted by the petitioner/husband by adducing cogent evidence. Be that as it may, in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, strict proof of marriage is not necessary. It is an admitted position that the petitioner and the opposite party no. 1 entered into a matrimonial alliance and lived as husband and wife. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with such finding as to the existence of matrimonial tie by the court below. With regard to the quantum of maintenance, I find that the amount of maintenance as fixed is not abnormally high in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same has been fixed at Rs. 1,050/- per month for the opposite party/wife and the minor son. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with such moderate sum of maintenance granted by the learned Magistrate. I, therefore, dismiss the revisional application.