JUDGMENT

L. MOHAPATRA, J. — The petitioner in this revision challenges the judgment and order dated 30.3.1999 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Criminal Proceeding No. 100 of 1997 allowing maintenance @ Rs. 350/- per month to the opposite party in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

2. Facts leading to initiation of the case are that the parties belong to ‘Saura’ caste and marriage between the peti¬tioner and the opposite party took place on 17.11.1995 according to Hindu rituals. It is alleged by the opposite party that two months after marriage the petitioner tortured and assaulted her demanding Rupees ten thousand. Since parents of the opposite party were not able to meet the demand, it is further alleged that she was assaulted on 1.4.1997 by the petitioner by means of a knife. It is further alleged that in January, 1996 the petitioner drove out the opposite party from matrimonial house and since then the opposite party is residing in her parental house. On the basis of the allegation of the opposite party, a case under Sections 498-A/324 of the Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has also been initiated against the peti¬tioner. On these allegations the opposite party claimed mainte¬nance @ Rs. 500/- per month. The petitioner denied the marriage and further alleged that the opposite party is a lady of immoral character and being instigated by some antisocial elements, she has filed the case for maintenance claiming to be wife of the petitioner and all other allegations made in the petition were denied. It was also alleged by the present petitioner that he is a young man and the opposite party is much older than him and there could not be any marriage between them.

3. Both the parties adduced evidence before the Court and on consideration of the evidence available on record, learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela found the opposite party to be the legally married wife of the present petitioner and accepting the allegations made in the petition allowed maintenance @ Rs. 350/- per month.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the marriage was disputed it was obligatory on the part of the opposite party to prove marriage in accordance with law and in absence of any such proof the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela committed an illegality in finding that there was a valid marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party. According to the learned counsel no evidence of marriage has been placed before the Court and whatever evidence has been led are insufficient to come to a conclusion that there was a valid mar¬riage between the petitioner and the opposite party. On the quan¬tum of maintenance, learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a snake charmer and hardly earns money and it is not possible to pay maintenance @ Rs. 350/- per month to the opposite party. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, on the other hand, submitted in a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. strict proof of marriage is not necessary and evidence has been led before the Court to prove marriage and the same has been rightly accepted by the Judge, Family Court. Since maintenance granted is negligible, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that this Court should refrain from interfering with the impugned order.

5. In order to appreciate contention of the learned coun¬sel for both parties, it is necessary to first see as to whether marriage has been proved in accordance with law or not. Standard of proof of marriage in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been the subject matter of discussion in several decisions of this Court. In the case of Chakradhar Pradhan v. Asali Dei and another, reported in 1985 (I) OLR 589, while dealing with the Gandharv form of marriage by exchange of garlands, this Court considering the evidence led before the trial Court held that strict proof of the formalities of a valid marriage is not neces¬sary in a proceeding u