JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 15.06.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 108 of 2008 by which he has been directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month to O.P. No. 2 for her maintenance from the date of the application, but in view of long pendency of the miscellaneous case the learned Family Court Judge has ordered that the arrears of maintenance for about 8 years shall be paid @ Rs. 3,000/- per month till realization of the entire arrears. 2. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without determining earnings of the petitioner which according to him was Rs. 5,000/- per month, the learned Judge has awarded maintenance @ Rs. 6,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2. During course of the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no proof of marriage of the petitioner with the opposite party no. 2 was produced and, in fact, she has married one Kailash Gupta S/o Late Madhav Gupta R/o Nagaon, Badiali Uraon, District-Thane, Mumbai. 3. The petitioner has stated that at the time of the alleged marriage he was a minor. He has denied his marriage with the opposite party no. 2 and birth of a son from the wedlock. He has admitted the photographs which were tendered in evidence by O.P. No. 2 and marked as Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-1/3. These photographs would show his marriage with the opposite party no. 2, but he has stated that those photographs were forcibly taken. He has produced voter identity card of one Reeta Devi in which name of her husband is shown as Kailsash Das to show that the opposite party no. 2 is married to another person, but it was without any photograph. He has produced some evidence also on his date of birth. 4. On the basis of the materials laid before him, the learned Family Court Judge has held thus: “Coming on to the second question i.e. quantum of maintenance the Applicant has alleged that opposite party is earning Rs. 40,000/- per month and is doing business as well as in service. Opposite Party has denied the same, but in cross-examination by way of suggestion given by the opposite party it has come up that the O.P. is only earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/-. 40,000/- per month and is doing business as well as in service. Opposite Party has denied the same, but in cross-examination by way of suggestion given by the opposite party it has come up that the O.P. is only earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/-. In cross-examination of the opposite party, he has admitted that he is earning about Rs. 5,000/- from business and thee is also admission that he is in service, though salary details has not been brought on the record. Under section 106 of the Evidence Act, it was incumbent upon the opposite party to prove his monthly earning, particularly when he was in service and when he has alleged to be earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month by putting suggestion to that effect. But the opposite party has not brought anything on the record to show his monthly earnings. There is nothing on the record to show that there are any dependents on the opposite party.” 5. Under section 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, solemnization of marriage in contravention of section 5(iii) of Act is punishable but it is not void. Section 18 provides that a marriage in contravention of clause (iii), (iv) and (v) of section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act is punishable and as in the case of a marriage in contravention of clause (i) and (ii) of section 5 it is not void. The stand taken by the petitioner to challenge his marriage with the opposite party no. 2 on the ground that at the time of marriage he was minor is of no avail to him. 6. The proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is summary in nature and strict compliance of the rules of evidence are not insisted upon in such a proceeding. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides remedy for a wife. The marriage may not have been performed by observing all essential rites and rituals of a customary marriage but if a woman is accepted by the family members of a man and the society as his wife or two persons have lived together as man and wife, marriage between the parties even though all the rituals of marriage were not performed is presumed. In Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another, (1999) 7 SCC 675 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “......In our view, validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. is to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties. The standard of proof of marriage in such proceedings is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under Section 494 IPC. If the claimant in proceedings under section 125 of the Code succeeds in showing that she and the respondent have lived together as husband and wife, the court can presume that they are legally wedded spouses, and in such a situation, the party who denies the marital status can rebut the presumption.....” 7. The opposite party has pleaded that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 16.11.1989 at Hatigoda Temple, Sakchi, Jamshedpur and from the wedlock a male child was born in the year, 1990. She has examined herself as a witness and claimed that her husband is earning Rs. 40,000/- per month but he has neglected to maintain her. She has examined Suresh Prasad Sharma, an employee of Hatigoda Mandir, who has deposed in the court that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the opposite party no. 2 through Birendar Kumar Ojha who was the priest of the temple. He has further stated in cross-examination that he knows both the parties and since 1985-86 he is working in Hatigoda Mandir. Her brother has deposed about her marriage and birth of a son from the wedlock with the petitioner and he has also spoken about earnings and income of the petitioner. On the contrary, except the voter identity card which was without a photograph no evidence on re-marriage of the opposite party no. 2 has been produced by the petitioner. In paragraph no. 9 of the judgment in “Dwarika Prasad Satpathy” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed, thus: “9. It is to be remembered that the order passed in an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties and the said section is enacted with a view to provide a summary remedy for providing maintenance to a wife, children and parents.....” 8. The opposite party no. It is to be remembered that the order passed in an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties and the said section is enacted with a view to provide a summary remedy for providing maintenance to a wife, children and parents.....” 8. The opposite party no. 2 has laid sufficient material on her marriage with the petitioner and her claim for maintenance merits acceptance. I find that she has shown that she has sufficient reasons not to live in the company of the petitioner and he has neglected to maintain her. The view taken by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court is based upon due consideration of the materials laid before him and, therefore, it does not warrant any interference. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am not inclined to entertain this criminal revision petition and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 1161 of 2016 is dismissed.