Short Note : 1. The learned Sessions Judge has stated in the reference that on perusal of the evidence on record, the following facts were borne out notionally from the evidence of non-applicant Babulal, but also from the statement of the applicant Mst. Sonia herself : (i) That in the caste to which the parties belong, the custom of divorce by Chhod Chhutti is prevalent and the Chhod Chhutti did take place between the parties resulting in divorce before 1966; (ii) That after the divorce, the applicant Mst. Sonia had given birth to a female child who was aged about 3 years in the year 1973 and thereby it could be safely inferred that she was living an adulterous life. Held: It is true that the scope or interference in revision is limited, but it does not mean that even such findings which are absolutely contrary to evidence 'on record and have been recorded by ignoring the material pieces of evidence will remain untouched despite the fact that sustaining such findings will apparently result in miscarriage of justice. 2. I have gone through the evidence on record and find that even according to the statement of the witnesses or the applicant herself, divorce by the custom of Chhod Chhutti was effected in between the parties before 1966. Under these circumstances, there was no scope for the magistrate to hold otherwise. Consequently, there being no subsisting relationship of husband and wife, there was no scope for making an order directing payment of maintenance according to the provisions of the old Code under which the application was moved. 3. Similarly, it is also borne out from the evidence on record that after the above mentioned divorce by the customary system of Chhod Chhutti the applicant gave birth to a female child. The contention of Mst. Sonia, that the child was born out of the wedlock and the birth took place before she was turned out by the non-applicant Babulal, was absolutely untenable in view of her own admission that she was turned out by the non-applicant about a year before the year of famine. She also stated that famine took place about 6 years before the date of evidence. According to her statement, it was undisputed that the year of famine was 1966 which was also a well known fact. The evidence was recorded in the year 1973. She also stated that famine took place about 6 years before the date of evidence. According to her statement, it was undisputed that the year of famine was 1966 which was also a well known fact. The evidence was recorded in the year 1973. Thus, it is apparent from the statement of the applicant herself that she was turned out in or about the year 1965-66. Admittedly, the female child borne to her was aged about 3 years in the year 1973 which goes to show that she was bore in or about the year 1970 i.e. long after 1966. However, since the present application moved under section 488 of the Old Code is liable to be dismissed on the finding that there was no subsisting relationship of husband and wife, it is not necessary to finally adjudicate the issue about living in adultery in the present case. Reference accepted.