JUDGMENT D.N. Mehta, J. - This Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the Petitioner Prabhavati Harischandra Avatade impugning the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, dated 23.1.1984. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner's husband Harischandra Tukaram Awatade, Respondent No. 1 herein and set aside the Order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mohol, dated 5.11.1982. 2. The Petitioner Prabhavati alleged that she had been married to the 1st Respondent Harischandra in the year 1976 at the old Vithal Mandir, Solapur, according to the Hindu Vedic rites and custom. Prabhavati alleged that she lived and cohabited with her husband Harischandra for a period of about two years during which she was harassed both by her husband and his family because, according to them, she had not brought sufficient dowry. Two years after the marriage Harischandra drove Prabhavati from the matrimonial home. 3. On 23.3.1982 Prabhavati filed an Application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against her husband Harischandra claiming a sum of Rs. 350/- per, month as maintenance for herself. At the hearing of the Application, Prabhavati examined herself as P.W. 1 and she examined her paternal uncle Dyandeo 'Narsing Jagtap P.W. 2, her maternal uncle Hari Gangaram Charan P.W. 3 and her father Jagram Jaising Jagtap, P.W. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class was of the view that Prabhavati had proved that she was the legally wedded wife of Respondent No.1 Harischandra, that she had proved that she was unable to maintain herself and thirdly, that she had proved that Respondent No. I Harischandra had sufficient means to maintain her but had neglected to do so Thereupon the learned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to order Respondent No 1 Harischandra to pay a sum of Rs. 250/- per month as maintenance to the Petitioner Prabhavati and a sum of Rs. 100/- as costs of the Application. 4. Respondent NO.1 Harischandra, being aggrieved by the said Order of maintenance, filed a. Criminal Revision Application, being Criminal Revision Application. 34 of t984, in the Court of the learned Addition Sessions Judge, Solapur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that Prabhavati had failed to prove that she was the legally wedded wife of Harischandra. 4. Respondent NO.1 Harischandra, being aggrieved by the said Order of maintenance, filed a. Criminal Revision Application, being Criminal Revision Application. 34 of t984, in the Court of the learned Addition Sessions Judge, Solapur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that Prabhavati had failed to prove that she was the legally wedded wife of Harischandra. The learned Additional Sessions Judge consequently was of the view that Prabhavati was not entitled to any maintenance from 'Harischandra. The learned Additional Sessions Judge thereupon allowed the Criminal Revision Application filed by Harischandar and set aside the Order of maintenance passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. 5. The Petitioner Prabhavati has now approached this Court in this Revision Application impugning the said Judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Solapur. 6. Kumari Daodekar, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Prabhavati, submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate had considered the evidence led before him by Prabhavati as also Harischandra and after scrutinising the same had come to the conclusion that Prabhavati had proved that she was the lawfully wedded wife of Harischandra and that she was unable to maintain herself and further that Respondent No. 1 Harischandra had sufficient means to support the Petitioner. Kumari Dandekar contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had acted beyond his jurisdiction in interfering with the findings of fact. Kumari Dandekar argued that the revisional jurisdiction could be exercised only in the event of manifest illegality or prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. Kumari Dandekar stated there was no apparent error of procedure followed by the learned Judicial Magistrate which had resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Nor was any point of law erroneously decided which would call for interference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his revisional jurisdiction Kumari Dandekar, therefore, submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge having interfered with a finding which was uncalled for, he had transgressed the limits of his revisional powers and, therefore, the order ought to be set aside. 7. Kumari Dandekar is justified in the submission which she has made. The revisional jurisdiction of the Court has to be invoked rarely and the Court cannot reappraise the evidence and substitute its own finding for the finding of the trial Court. 7. Kumari Dandekar is justified in the submission which she has made. The revisional jurisdiction of the Court has to be invoked rarely and the Court cannot reappraise the evidence and substitute its own finding for the finding of the trial Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration1, observed: "The jurisdiction of the High Court in a criminal revision application is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence." 8. In the case of Pakalapati Narayana Gajapathi Raju v. Bonapalli Peda Appadu2, Their Lordships observed: "Section 439(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court may exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal. This provision is made expressly subject to sub-section (4) of section 439 under which nothing contained in the section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Section 439 has been interpreted in several decisions of this Court which have taken the view that the revisional jurisdiction, when invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, ought not to be exercised lightly and that it can be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross It is carriage of justice. It is clear from these decisions that the revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because the lower court has not appreciated the evidence properly." 9. Again in the case of State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu3 Their Lordships observed: "So far as the first point is concerned, it is to be emphasised that Although the revisional power of the High Court under section 439 read with section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is as wide as the power of Court of Appeal under section 423 of the Code, it is now well settled that normally the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 439 is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice." 10. In the instant case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has reappraised and scrutinised the entire evidence and has set aside the findings of the trial Court. The main grounds on which the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the evidence of Prabhavati are that she had not produced the ration card of the husband's household which would have proved that she had resided with her husband for a period of two years and secondly, that Prabhavati had not explained why if she had been driven out of the matrimonial borne, in the year 1978, she filed the Application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only in the year 1982, i.e. four years later. 11. I am of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not reappraise and reappreciate the evidence in his revisional jurisdiction. There appears to be no glaring defect in the procedure followed by the trial Court, nor was there any manifest error on a point of law which consequently resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Revisional Court was not expected to act as if it was hearing an Appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was not of the view that any material piece of evidence had been omitted from consideration by the trial Court. In these circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction vested in him as a Revisional Court. Thus the interference of this Court is validly called for. The Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge deserves to be reversed and the Order of maintenance passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate to be confirmed. 12. In the result, the rule is made absolute. The Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, dated 23.1.1984 is set aside and the Order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mohol, dated 5.11.1982 is confirmed. Rule made absolute. 1. A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1960. 2. A.I.R 1975 S.C. 1854, 3. A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 663.