The standard of proof of marriage in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code need not be as high as in other legal proceedings, and the court's jurisdiction is limited and preventive in nature.

( 1 ) THIS Criminal Petition arises out of an order dated 27-8-1983 passed by the I Additional sessions Judge, Dharwad, in Cr. R. P. No. 54/81 dismissing the revision and confirming the order dated 29-8-1981 passed by the J. M. F. C. II Court, Hubl. in Misc. Case No. 204/79, a Petition filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal procedure (the Code) claiming maintenance against the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the disposal of this Petition may be summarised as follows : the respondent in her Petition under Section 125 of the Code averred thai she was married to the petitioner on 19-4-1976 at Hospet, that the marriage has been registered in the Sub-Registrar's office, that after the marriage she and the Petitioner lived together at Basel Mission Compound, dharwad, that by this wedlock a male child was born to them on 5-9-1977, that after some time the petitioner began to ill-treat the respondent and even threatened to kill her, that the petitioner made the life of the respondent miserable and finally on 5 4-1978 the petitioner snatched a chain from the respondent and drove her out of his house, that therefore the respondent is residing with her mother in her house, that the respondent later got issued a notice to the petitioner but the petitioner did not care to send a reply, that the petitioner neglected to maintain the respondent, that the respondent is unable to maintain herself, that she had already incurred a loan of Rs. 3,000/- for her maintenance, that the petitioner is working in K. S. R. T. C. and getting a salary of rs. 900/- per month and has sufficient means to maintain her and on these grounds she claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month.

( 3 ) THE petitioner resisted the claim of the respondent inter-alia contending that the application for maintenance is not maintainable, that there is no legal marriage between him and the respondent, that the alleged marriage of the respondent with the petitioner on 19 4 1976 was never solemnized, that what was registered was only an agreement of marriage, that the petitioner married one Smt. Sarojini in 1963 and that the said marriage is still subsisting and therefore the alleged marriage of the respondent with the petitioner is not valid under the provisions of the Indian Christians Marriage Act, 1872, that the child born to them is in his custody and that the allegations about the ill-treatment and cruelty etc. , are false and denied. On these grounds, he sought for the dismissal of the Petition.

( 4 ) THE Learned Magistrate, after holding an enquiry, allowed the Petition filed by the respondent partly and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month.

( 5 ) THE petitioner carried the matter to the Court of the Sessions at Dharwad in Cr. R. P. No. 54/81. The Revision Petition came to be heard by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad, who by his order dated 27-8-1983 dismissed the Revision Petition and confirmed the order of the court of the first instance. Hence this Criminal Petition.

( 6 ) HEARD the Learned Advocates appearing for both the parties.

( 7 ) SRI Joshi, in the course of his arguments, contended that the respondent has failed to prove that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized in a Church as required in their community to constitute a valid marriage ; that her marrige with the petitioner was rendered void since the marriage took place during the subsistence of the petitioner's first marriage and that the respondent is not entitled to maintenance as she was not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. On these grounds he maintained that the impugned orders of both the Courts below are liable to be set a side and the petition filed by the respondent be dismissed.

( 8 ) PER contra, Sri Jadhav, the Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent, argued in support of the orders of the Courts-below. He maintained tha