JUDGMENT : A. P. Ravani, J. The original opponent of Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 96 of 1981 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Bhavnagar, against whom the respondent herein (wife) filed an application for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Criminal Revision Application No. 28 of 1982 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent wife at the rate of Rs. 75 per month from the date of the application, i.e. May 2, 1981. The respondent wife filed application for maintenance, inter ilia, alleging that her marriage had taken place on 17th May 1979 (by slip of pen it appears to have been written 17th May 1980 and which has been corrected been later on) and that, after her marriage, the opponent and his mother were ill-treating her and the opponent himself neglected and they did not care to maintain her and hence she filed an application for maintenance, which was resisted by the petitioner-husband. Before filing an application, a notice dated April 4, 1981 was given. It was replied to by the opponent on April 10, 1981. The trial Court recorded evidence and heard the parties. The trial Court proceeded on the footing that the marriage had taken place on May 17, 1979 by the petitioner-wife and produced at Ex. 13 is not genuine and came to the conclusion that the petitioner write had failed to prove the allegations made by her in the application and that she was not entitled to stay separate and claim maintenance. The trial Court passed the aforesaid order by its judgment dated March 22, 1982. 2. The respondent-wife feeling herself aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed on the trial Court preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 28 of 1932 in the Court of the Sessions Judge at Bhavnagar. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar heard the revision application and he came to the conclusion that the respondent wife was entitled to stay separate and claim maintenance and, therefore, ordered the petitioner herein to pay Rs. 75 per month as maintenance and, to pay Rs. 100 as cost of the original application to the wife. That judgment was pronounced on 28th June, 1932. 3. The petitioner-husband has preferred this revision. 75 per month as maintenance and, to pay Rs. 100 as cost of the original application to the wife. That judgment was pronounced on 28th June, 1932. 3. The petitioner-husband has preferred this revision. application and has challenged the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar it was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that it was not open to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to reappreciate the evidence at the stage of hearing of revision application and he ought not to have allowed additional evidence at that stage and should not have disturbed the finding with regard to the date of marriage. At any rate, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have granted an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before taking the additional evidence on record. The respondent-wife when filed revision application in the Court of the Sessions at Bhavnagar took the ground with regard to the date of marriage in revision memo itself and together with the revision memo produced a copy of the marriage invitation card. In the revision application, when the petitioner-husband appeared, he has tiled reply exh. 7 and in that reply he was not controverted the statement of the wife that the marriage has taken place on May 17, 1979. It is true that to say that at the stage of revision application ordinarily, the Court would not allow the parties to introduce new facts and permit them to lead evidence and the reply. Here the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has permitted the parties to take up this ground and has also permitted the other side to file the reply. By adopting this procedure, no prejudice to anyone is caused. After all, a procedure is only a means to an end. What is material is the justice and to achieve, the ends of justice, if slightly unusual procedure is adopted by which no prejudice is caused to either side, I do not think that is can be a ground for interference in revision application at the High Court stage. In fact, this cannot be a new ground. It is only a clarification of an ambiguity. In fact, this cannot be a new ground. It is only a clarification of an ambiguity. It may further be noted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also taken into consideration the evidence of the respondent-wife and on the basis of the fact that she has deposed that her marriage took place before about two years and nine months from the date of her giving deposition (her deposition was recorded on January 11, 1982), he has come to the conclusion that the correct date of marriage would be May 17, 1979 and not May 17, 1980. Since the petitioner-husband has been given adequate opportunity of replying to the revision memo, the ground that he was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard cannot be sustained. Assuming that, on this point, i.e. on the point that the marriage invitation card was introduced at the stage of revision application, he was not given an opportunity of being heard and make representations and, particularly to cross-examine the respondent-wife, even then, the evidence of the wife remains that her marriage took place before two years and nine months from the date of recording of the deposition. On this point, there is no dispute. Therefore, it is clear that by introducing marriage card an ambiguity has been removed. Thus, this cannot be a ground for interference by the High Court in revision. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no finding either by the trial Court or by the learned Sessions Judge that the respondent-wife was unable to maintain herself. Such a finding is given by necessary implication. What the learned Addl. Sessions Judge discussed the evidence of the respondent-wife about her earnings and the earnings of the other side, it is clear that he has decided this point in favour of the respondent-wife. It may be noted that either on the reply to the notice or in the reply to the application or in the deposition the petitioner-husband has not stated that the respondent- wife is able to maintain herself. While on the other hand the respondent wife has stated in her evidence that she had no means of livelihood. Therefore, this contention has also no merit and it fails. 5. While on the other hand the respondent wife has stated in her evidence that she had no means of livelihood. Therefore, this contention has also no merit and it fails. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was not open to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to reappreciate evidence in revision application specially when the trial Court had appreciated the entire evidence and given its finding on all aspects. The trial Court proceeded on the footing that the marriage had taken place on May 17, 1980. This was an error apparent on record much more so in, view of the evidence of the respondent-wife. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in going into the evidence and in coming to his own conclusion, based on correct facts, the counsel for the petitioner-husband further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought nut to have believed Post Card Ex. 13 written by the respondent-wife. Once the learned sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the marriage has taken place on 17th May 1979 and not on 17th May 1980, it was necessary for him to take into consideration this letter and the necessary corollary of the aforesaid finding as to the date for marriage is twat the post Cara Ex. 13 was a genuine one. Assuming that this Post Card should not have been taken into consideration by the learned Additional Sessions Jude, even then, he has given his finding on the totality of the evidence which consists of the oral testimony of the respondent her father's deposition and other facts and circumstances of the case. It is not that the entire finding is based on ex 13. Therefore also, this contention fail 6. The counsel for the petitioner-husband submits that he was ready and willing to keep the wife wit h him and, as a matter of fact, he had offered the other side to come and stay together. But, on this point, there is a clear finding given by the learned Additional Sessions judge that the offer was not genuine. I see no reason to interfere with that finding of the Learned Additional Judge. 7. No other contention is urged. 8 In the above view of the matter, the revision application fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. Revision dismissed.