Jyotirmoyee Nag, J.
1. This Rule is directed against an order dated 29th October, 1976 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Asansol in Misc. Case No. 100 of 1974 awarding a sum of Rs. 100/- as maintenance to the opposite party wife and Rs. 50/- per month for the child. The petitioner husband has challenged the validity of his marriage with the opposite parry. The learned Magistrate went into evidence adduced by the opposite party wife, i. e., her oral evidence together with Exhibit 2 which is a certificate of Registration on their marriage under the Hindu Law and also Exhibit 1 which is an agreement executed by the parties affirming the marriage. The wife, opposite party claimed maintenance on the ground that she was treated in a cruel manner by the husband who was in the habit of beating her and being unable to endure such behaviour she went to live with parents in 1974. The opposite party did not care to pay anything towards maintenance of the opposite party and her minor child. The learned Magistrate also found that the petitioner was earning Rs. 480/- per month and the parties belonged to lower middle class in social status and accordingly he awarded maintenance at the rate stated above.
2. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that the marriage between the parties was not legally proved as no witness came forward to depose to the ceremonies of marriage required for a valid Hindu marriage. I do not think that that is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Exhibit 2, being certificate of marriage relating to registration of the marriage between the par ties is sufficient proof that the parties were married. The statement before the Marriage Sub-Registrar under the Hindu Marriage Act is evidence and also amounts to admission by the petitioner that he had married the opposite party. It is true that they were married as early as 1965 and the registration was made in 1974 but that is not very material. The Magistrate is not a full fledged civil court to go into the validity of the marriage and it is sufficient that marriage is admitted by the petitioner (vide Exhibit 2). Therefore, I have no hesitation in upholding the findings of the learned Magistrate on this point.
3. Regarding the cruelty meted out to the opposite party by the petitioner she has proved by her own evidence that the petitioner has maltreated her and there is no evidence on the side of the husband challenging that fact. The income of the husband is found by the learned Magistrate to be Rs. 480/-per month only. It is true that he has a wife and another child to maintain. As the learned Magistrate found that she was his validly married wife which I have upheld, the fact that he has another wife is immaterial in the context of the present case. Be that as it may, as urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the amount is excessive considering his liabilities. I accordingly reduce the amount of the maintenance awarded to the wife to Rs. 75/- per month and the child will get Rs. 50'/- per month as ordered by the learned Magistrate made effective from the first day of November 1976. When the Rule was issued, there was an order for depositing maintenance of Rs. 100/- per month for both the opposite party and the child, to be paid by the 15th of the following month from January 1977. I am told by the learned Advocate of the opposite party that the husband deposited maintenance for a few months and thereafter stopped making payment. The petitioner will pay the sum of Rs. 75/- and Rs. 50/- by the 15th of the month following for January 1977 he will pay the maintenance by the 15th of the following month in addition pay a sum of Rs. 25/-per month be paid towards arrears until the same is liquidated.
4. The Rule is accordingly disposed of.