JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J.- Heard counsel for the petitioner. 2. The only question involved in the present writ petition is whether Smt. Basanti had remarried. The Trial Court gave judgment for the petitioner holding that Smt. Basanti had remarried whereas the appellate courts have negatived the claim of the petitioner on the finding that Smt. Basanti had not remarried. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the Trial Court has not raised presumption in favour of the valid marriage in the circumstances of the present case when it has been established that Smt Basanti had lived with Nawal Singh as well as Badri, and she had also submitted that she gave birth to a child. 4. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the appellate court have failed to meet the reasoning and necessary finding recorded by the trial court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a recent ruling of their Lordships of the Supreme Court that ordinarily the finding recorded by the Trial Court should not be interfered by the appellate court. 5. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. I find that the first appellate court has given cogent reasons in support of its finding. However, in any view of the matter I am not prepared to hold that the appellate courts have patently erred in appraising the evidence on record. 6. As regards the legal presumption about validity of marriage it is sufficient to indicate that Badri had his wife when the alleged marriage between him and Smt. Basanti had taken place hence the appellate court has rightly held that in presence of a living wife, no valid marriage can take place. I think that no exception can be taken to such a finding. 7. As regards the petitioner's contention that the finding recorded by the trial court could not be interfered with by the appellate court I think that there is no absolute rule that the appellate Court could not interfere with the finding recorded by the Trial Court. The attack of the learned counsel for the petitioner is in the realm of appraisal of evidence. Moreover the finding recorded by the Trial Court is not based on the demeanour of the witnesses. The attack of the learned counsel for the petitioner is in the realm of appraisal of evidence. Moreover the finding recorded by the Trial Court is not based on the demeanour of the witnesses. This is quite a different thing that in the circumstances of the present case the trial court is of one view and on the same facts the appellate court has taken contrary view. If the appraisal of evidence by the Trial Court is not mainly based on the demeanour of the witnesses, the appellate court has full jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and come to a contrary finding. I do not think that in the present case the appellate court has patently erred in negativing the claim of the petitioner. 8. The judgment of the first appellate court has been confirmed by the second appellate court. In neither of the judgment there is any patent error of law. 9. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.