ORDER : Subhash Kakade, J. This Criminal Revision is filed by the applicant under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), being aggrieved by the order 07.05.04 passed in Criminal Revision No.154/2003 by learned Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhindwara whereby the order dated 23.08.03 passed in MJC No. 49/98 by learned ACJM, Saunsar was reversed. 2. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code against the respondent on the ground that marriage between his mother Shobhabai and the respondent was performed some time in the year 1989 and out of their wedlock, the applicant was born on 17.03.97. The behaviour of the respondent was cruel towards the applicant and his mother, and all of a sudden in November, 1997 the respondent left the company of applicant and his mother and was not maintaining them, hence prayed for maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the respondent. 3. The respondent denied the marriage and submit that there is no relation between him and Shobha, hence there is no question of birth of applicant Ajay from wedlock. 4. The said application allowed by learned ACJM, Saunsar with regard to applicant Ajay, but same was dismissed with related to Shobhabai. As both the parties were feeling aggrieved, therefore, assailed the Order dated 23.08.03 passed by learned ACJM. Vide impugned order dated 07.05.04, learned Revisional Court allowed the revision of the respondent and set aside the order of ACJM, Saunsar granting maintenance to the applicant, whereas the revision filed by Shobhabai was also dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submit that learned Courts below have wrongly held that Shobha is not wife of the respondent, therefore, rejection of claim of applicant Ajay is illegal and perverse, hence requested to allow this revision. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the said argument on the ground that as Shobhabai is not wife of the respondent, therefore, applicant Ajay will not get any relief of maintenance from the respondent. 7. Having heard learned counsel of the parties, and minutely perusal of the records, this revision of the applicant deserves to be allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the said argument on the ground that as Shobhabai is not wife of the respondent, therefore, applicant Ajay will not get any relief of maintenance from the respondent. 7. Having heard learned counsel of the parties, and minutely perusal of the records, this revision of the applicant deserves to be allowed. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that when this revision heard with relation to Shobhabai for maintainability, vide Order dated 18.01.15 the Court direct to delete the name of Shobhabai from the cause title because she has already filed an application under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 6451/04. 9. While dismissing M.Cr.C. No. 6451/04 of Shobhabai vide Order dated 17.09.2008 same time the Court protected rights of the applicant which reads as under:- "(3) On perusal of the records and the judgment passed by learned Magistrate as well as the lower Revisional Court regarding refusal of maintenance to applicant No.1 Smt. Shobha Bai, this Court does not find any material illegality or perversity to hold that there was abuse of process of Court of law requiring interference under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court no case is made out in favour of the applicant No.1 Smt. Shobha Bai against the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by two Courts below, therefore, this application is hereby dismissed. (4) It is made clear that though in this application applicant no.2 Ajay is arrayed as applicant No.2 who is a minor but no relief sought by him because the learned Magistrate had already granted maintenance in his favour and same has been challenged by the non-applicant by filing separate revision. In this view of the matter it is made clear that any observation made in this order by this Court shall not construe in any way against applicant No.2 Ajay. (5) The office is direct to keep the record of the Courts below in the high Court for decision in Criminal Revision No. 1287/2004, Ajay v. Dhanraj." 10. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is enacted with a view to provide summary remedy for providing maintenance to a wife, children and parents. 11. The husband cannot desert the wife and child by merely denying the relationship. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is enacted with a view to provide summary remedy for providing maintenance to a wife, children and parents. 11. The husband cannot desert the wife and child by merely denying the relationship. The husband cannot save or shield himself by saying that the respondent is not his wife or his marriage with the lady is not valid or ab initio void. 12. The initial onus to prove the relationship is upon the 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. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that for the purposes of Section 125 of the Code, law does not require the strict proof of marriage as required under the provisions of Section 494 of IPC. 14. Strict proof of marriage is not necessary – Sumitra v. Bhikan AIR 1985 SC 765 . In considering application for maintenance, 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. In a prosecution for bigamy under Section 494 IPC, the second marriage has to be proved as a fact, but the propositions of law "have no bearing in the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C., which is a summary nature. 15. 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 utilised 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. 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. 16. 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 recognised by all persons concerned as man and wife, the presumption would be that the woman was the wife of the man. 17. In light of above discussed legal position with regard to proof of marriage, we will proceed to discuss status of the applicant. 18. During cross-examination of Shobhabai (PW-1) her attention was drawn towards this fact that previously she was married with one Kailash and she never married with the respondent which were denied by her. She also admit that she is not capable to specify the place of temple where her marriage was solemnized with the respondent. Other witnesses Rambhau Kodjawre (PW-2), Gajanan Kawrait (PW-3) brother of Shobhabai are also not in position to explain the place of marriage as well as other related facts. 19. But, it is pertinent to mention here that in all documents (Exh. D/1 to Exh. D/15) name of Narayan is mentioned as father of Shobhabai (PW-1), nowhere name of Kailash so called first husband of Shobhabai (PW-1), is mentioned. 20. Learned Revisional Court on strength of document (Exh. D/6) held that after birth of the applicant Ajay the respondent Dhanraj tried to marriage with another lady, hence, Shobhabai filed an application for temporary injunction against the respondent Dhanraj. 21. In this sequence, as per admissions of the respondent Dhanraj (DW-1) it is proved fact that there was existence of criminal litigation between Shobhabai and him. Both the parties were lodged the FIR against each other. This admission of Dhanraj (DW/1) is also important that the house of Shobhabai is situated after 50 other houses from his house. 22. Complaint (Exh. D/15) is the copy of the report lodged by Dhanraj (DW-1) against Shobhabai under the provision of 155 of the Code. Complaints (Exh. D/15-A and Exh. This admission of Dhanraj (DW/1) is also important that the house of Shobhabai is situated after 50 other houses from his house. 22. Complaint (Exh. D/15) is the copy of the report lodged by Dhanraj (DW-1) against Shobhabai under the provision of 155 of the Code. Complaints (Exh. D/15-A and Exh. D/15-B) are also filed by the Dhanraj (DW-1) against Shobhabai. 23. Question arises when existence of relationship between Shobhabai and Dhanraj is challenged then why litigation was pending between these two? 24. Learned trial Court as well as learned Revisional Court held that as per Bachcha-Jachcha Card (Exh. P/3) name of Dhanraj is mentioned as father of applicant Ajay and Shobhabai as mother and date of birth 17.03.1997 is mentioned in this card (Exh. P/3). 25. 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 Shobhabai and respondent Dhanraj were lived together as husband and wife though not legally married but the applicant is son of this couple, hence he is entitled to get maintenance amount from the respondent Dhanraj. 26. It has also rightly held by learned trial Court that the respondent is having sufficient means of earning and looking to these facts and circumstances, the monthly maintenance has rightly been fixed by learned trial Court. 27. After perusal of both the orders of Courts below, I find that impugned Revisional order dated 07.05.2004 passed by learned Revisional Court deserves to be set aside because, learned Revisional Court committed error while deciding this fact that Shobhabai is not wife of the respondent for the limited purpose of awarding the maintenance amount under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code. 28. Further, in above mentioned facts and circumstances, order dated 23.08.2003 passed by learned trial Court requires to be upheld and restored as it is apparent that learned trial Court has not committed any error while passing the said order on dated 23.08.2003 and direct the respondent/father Dhanraj to pay maintenance amount to the applicant/son Ajay. 29. Accordingly, this revision is allowed.