JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.06.2016 passed in Original Miscellaneous Case No. 24 of 2012 by which he has been directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 who are his wife and son. 2. The only ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that while awarding maintenance to the petitioners wife and son the learned Family Court Judge has failed to consider the provision under sub-section 4 to section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no evidence on record which would establish that the petitioner has contracted second marriage and the opposite party no. 2 has given a written undertaking in the police station that she does not want to live with her husband and therefore the petitioners wife has no reasonable ground not to live in his company. 4. In a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure strict proof of marriage cannot be insisted. In '' Kamala Vs. M.R.Mohan Kumar'' [2018 SCC OnLine SC 2121 ], the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed as under: ''15. ''Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, such strict standard of proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy. In Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit, this Court held that ''27. the standard of proof of marriage in a Section 125 proceeding is not as strict as is required in a trial for an offence under Section 494 IPC. The learned Judges explained the reason for the aforesaid finding by holding that an order passed in an application under Section 125 does not really determine the rights and obligations of the parties as the section is enacted with a view to provide a summary remedy to neglected wives to obtain maintenance. The learned Judges held that maintenance cannot be denied where there was some evidence on which conclusions of living together could be reached.'' When the parties live together as husband and wife, there is a presumption that they are legally married couple for claim of maintenance of wife under Section 125 CrPC.'' 5. In the proceeding of maintenance case the petitioners wife has examined 3 witnesses and the petitioner has examined 5 witnesses. In the proceeding of maintenance case the petitioners wife has examined 3 witnesses and the petitioner has examined 5 witnesses. His wife has produce a copy of letter dated 18.05.2015, copy of Complaint Case No. 33 of 2012 and deposition of Anil Prasad in G.R. Case No. 33 of 2012. 6. On the basis of the materials laid before him the Principal Family Court Judge has held that the petitioner has contracted second marriage and he has two children from his second marriage. Explanation to sub-section 3 to section 125 provides that if the husband has contracted a second marriage that itself is a good ground for his wife not to stay in his company. 7. In view of the findings recorded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court and explanation under section 125 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , I find no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. Otherwise also, I do not find any infirmity in the order of maintenance dated 29.06.2016. The petitioner who is a teacher and getting salary of Rs. 38,400/- per month has been directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to his wife and son. The amount of maintenance is not excessive and the petitioner who has sufficient income is liable to pay maintenance to his wife and son. 8. In the above facts, finding no merit in this criminal revision petition, Criminal Revision No. 948 of 2016 is dismissed. 9. I.A. No. 415 of 2017 filed for early hearing stands disposed of. 10. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX.