Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 125 - Maintenance - Entitlement - Appellant wife filed an application for maintenance against respondent husband - Respondent denied the existence of spouse relationship between the parties - Trial Court held that appellant was the wife of respondent and the respondent was directed to pay maintenance - Respondent challenged the Trial Court order before HC - Single Judge there was no valid marriage between the respondent and the appellant, as an earlier marriage between the appellant and one another lady was subsisting and as the marriage with the appellant was performed without repudiation of the earlier marriage, the subsequent marriage was not a valid one and hence no maintenance could be paid to the appellant - Whether the appellant was entitled to maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC - Held, in revision against the maintenance order passed in proceedings u/s. 125, CrPC., the revisional court had no power to re-assess evidence and substitute its own findings - Under revisional jurisdiction, the questions whether the applicant was a married wife, the children were legitimate/illegitimate, being pre-eminently questions of fact, should not be reopened and the revisional court should not substitute its own views - HC, therefore, was not required in revision to interfere with the positive finding in favour of the marriage and patronage of a child but where finding was a negative one, the HC would entertain the revision, re-evaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion whether the findings or conclusions reached by the Magistrate were legally sustainable or not as negative finding had evil consequences on the life of both child and the woman - In the instant case, appellant had succeeded in proving that she was the legally married wife of the respondent with three children - It had further been proved that the respondent-husband started deserting the appellant-wife after almost 25 years of marriage and in order to avert the claim of maintenance, a story of previous marriage was set up for which he failed to furnish any proof much less clear proof - Thus, it was not open for the HC under its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the finding of the Trial Court and absolve the respondent from paying the maintenance to the appellant-wife - Appeal allowed.
