ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. The instant revision petition is filed by petitioner-husband to challenge impugned order dated 29th of September, 2016, passed by Family Court, Bhilwara (for short, 'learned Court below') granting maintenance to respondent-wife @ Rs. 10,000/- per mensem, while accepting her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this revision petition are that respondent-wife submitted a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against petitioner for claiming maintenance and other expenses to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- per month. It was specifically averred by the respondent, in her petition, that both of them entered into matrimony as per Muslim rites and rituals on 6th of April, 2015 at Bhilwara but, soon after marriage, petitioner started ill-treating her with demand of dowry. The petition further unfurled that atrocious behavior petitioner of continued unabatedly for demand of dowry. Against atrocious and cruel behavior, respondent lodged FIR against petitioner for offence under Section 498A, 406 & 354 IPC. A fact, that petitioner and other members of in-laws family ousted respondent from matrimonial home, also find mention in the petition. For claiming maintenance, respondent pleaded in the petition that she is living with her parents and is unable to maintain herself, therefore, petitioner may be directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 40,000/- per month. With a view to quantify the amount of maintenance, respondent has specifically averred in the petition that petitioner is doing business of tailoring at Gulabpura with the assistance of fifteen co-workers and is earning Rs. 3,000/- per day. That apart, agricultural income of the petitioner is also shown as Rs. 10,000/- per month. The petition filed by the respondent-wife is contested by petitioner-husband and reply to the same is submitted with bare denial of all the averments. In the reply, no endeavor was made by the petitioner-husband to refute the allegations. 3. After submission of reply, respondent-wife herself appeared in the witness box and testified on oath but despite availing many opportunities no evidence was tendered by petitioner-husband. Learned Court below, thereafter, heard final arguments and by the order impugned partly allowed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the impugned order and thoroughly scanned the record of the case. 5. Learned Court below, thereafter, heard final arguments and by the order impugned partly allowed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the impugned order and thoroughly scanned the record of the case. 5. The remedy provided under Chapter IX Cr.P.C. primarily aimed to give social justice to women and children to prevent their destitution and vagrancy. Therefore, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is intended to achieve the social purpose. A bare reading of this section makes it abundantly clear that it is a fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents so long they are unable to maintain themselves. In substance, proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are not punitive but remedial, and therefore, to ensure early disposal of such applications summary procedure is also provided. 6. In the instant case, respondent-wife is has pleaded all the relevant facts for claiming maintenance but on behalf of petitioner-husband a very vague and cryptic reply is filed. That apart, respondent-wife has substantiated all the averments contained in the petition by appearing in the witness box and contrary to it no evidence is tendered by the petitioner-husband. Therefore, in totality, the evidence tendered by respondent-wife remained uncontroverted to the extent of factum of matrimony, her vagrancy and earnings of the petitioner-husband. It is really strange, that on behalf of petitioner-husband before learned Court below no objection was raised about validity of marriage between both the parties but before this Court it is vociferously canvassed. 7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of marriage, respondent was already married and was not divorced by her previous husband, and therefore, marriage was not in accordance with Muslim Law, appears to be quite attractive but then factum of living together as husband and wife remained undisputed cannot be overlooked by the Court. Moreover, launching of criminal case against him and his family members by respondent for offence under Sections 498A, 406 & 354 IPC is also significant to prima facie show matrimony. 8. Upon consideration all these arguments, which are absolutely alien to the pleadings of petitioner and fall short of requisite proof, I am constrained to observe that unlike matrimonial proceedings, in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. strict proof of marriage is not essential. 8. Upon consideration all these arguments, which are absolutely alien to the pleadings of petitioner and fall short of requisite proof, I am constrained to observe that unlike matrimonial proceedings, in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. strict proof of marriage is not essential. The standard of proof in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not akin to matrimonial proceedings as these proceedings are summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy. My this view is also fortified by a judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Chanmuniya v. Chanmuniya Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr. [ (2011) 1 SCC 141 ], wherein the Court held: "46.We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term 'wife' to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125." 9. Therefore, in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as there is no specific denial by petitioner-husband about matrimony and further he has not tendered any evidence to authenticate his so called defence, in my considered opinion, learned Court below has not committed any error much less manifest error in relying on unimpeached testimony of respondent-wife. It is also noteworthy that regarding his per month income also petitioner did not place any concrete proof on record before the learned Court below, nor he tendered requisite evidence, yet the learned Court below has taken a lenient view in assessing the monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. 10. In above view of the matter, upon examining the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, I am unable to find any illegality or impropriety so as to interfere with the same. 11. Resultantly, the revision petition fails and same is hereby dismissed.