JUDGMENT : Subhash Kakade, J. 1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 19.03.2010, passed in Criminal Revision No.18/2009, by Sessions Judge, Dindori, arising out of order dated 06.06.2008, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No.66/2008, by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dindori. 2. It is mainly contested by the learned counsel for the applicant that the respondent no.1 wife does not adduced sufficient evidence that she is legally wedded wife of the applicant and respondents no.2 and 3 are the children of the applicant. 3. The initial onus to prove the relationship is upon the respondent-wife. Proof by wife that she has been treated as wife is sufficient. They lived together as husband and wife and were treated as such by the community. The law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage. Accordingly, continuous cohabitation of a man and a woman as husband and wife and their treatment as such for a number of years raise the presumption of marriage. 4. Strict proof of marriage is not necessary - Sumitra v Bhikan : AIR 1985 SC 765 : (1985) 1 SCC 637 : 1985 SCC (Cr) 145 : (1985) 2 Crimes 88 : 1985 CrLJ 528 . In considering application for maintenance by wife, the criminal court cannot enquire whether marriage was legal or illegal. The standard of proof need not be so high as required either in a proceeding under the Divorce Act or in prosecutions under Sections 494, 495, 497 or 498, I.P.C. Dwarika v Bidyut : (1999) 7 SCC 675 : Cr.L.J. 1 (SC). 5. In a prosecution for bigamy under Section 494 IPC, the second marriage has to be proved as a fact - B.S. Lokhande v State : AIR 1965 SC 1564 : 1965(2) CrLJ 544; but the propositions of law “have no bearing in the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C., which is a summary nature. 6. A woman who comes to the life of a man, gives herself to the man, takes the family life of the man and the man, on the other hand, uses her as such, recognizes her as such, must come within the fold of the term ‘wife’, absence of ceremonial marriage notwithstanding. 7. Because, order passed in an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties. 7. Because, order passed in an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties. The decision of the Criminal Court that there was a valid marriage between the parties will not operate as decisive in any civil proceeding between the parties Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not to be utilized for defeating the rights conferred by the Legislature to the destitute woman, children or parents who are victims of social environment. In a proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is expected to pass appropriate order after being prima facie satisfied about the marital status of the parties. But this would be a tentative decision. Either of the parties can approach the civil court for a decision on his or her status notwithstanding the decision in the summary proceeding. 8. Where there is prima facie proved that the man and woman were living together for a long time, the man acknowledging the woman’s children as his own children and treating the woman as his wife and they were recognized by all persons concerned as man and wife, the presumption would be that the woman was the wife of the man. 9. Learned Courts below found this fact proved that applicant and respondent were living together as husband and wife and they have two sons Shiv Kumar and Santosh Kumar. 10. In above facts and circumstances the relation for the purpose of maintenance awarded under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code is sufficient that the applicant and respondent were living together for a long time as husband and wife. 11. Learned Revisional Court, after appreciation of evidence of Gangawati, Babulal and Gwalen Bai, the respondent and her brother and mother rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent no.1 was wedded with the applicant as per prevailing traditions and ceremonies in the Adiwasi community in presence of elder persons of the community after celebration. And reason was that the applicant made illegal matrimonial relations with the respondent no.1. 12. After perusal of the impugned order and revision memo, I find that learned Revisional Court has rightly held that respondent, as per prevailing customs in their caste is wedded wife of applicant and having two sons also. 13. It is the obligation of the husband to maintain wife, father to maintain children and son to maintain parents. 12. After perusal of the impugned order and revision memo, I find that learned Revisional Court has rightly held that respondent, as per prevailing customs in their caste is wedded wife of applicant and having two sons also. 13. It is the obligation of the husband to maintain wife, father to maintain children and son to maintain parents. It will, therefore, be for him to show that he has no sufficient means to discharge his obligation: Rajathi vs. C. Ganesan : (1999) 6 SCC 326 . Means does not signify only visible means, such as real property or definite employment: Basanta vs. Sarat 1982 CrLJ 485. An able-bodied person has sufficient means: Kandaswami vs. Angammal : AIR 1960 Mad 348 : 1960 CrLJ 1098 . It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant is a Forest Officer of class three cadre. 14. In the light of above mentioned facts and circumstances and legal position learned Revisional Court rightly held that the applicant also having sufficient means of income to pay maintenance and, therefore, rightly awarded the maintenance amount. 15. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the Court below with record.