L. M. GHOSH, J. ( 1 ) THE O. P. No. 2, the wife filed a case under section 125 of the Cr. P. C. for maintenance. Her case was that after marriage with the petitioner husband, she resided for sometime in his family. Later, the petitioner got involved with one woman. Ganga Rani, When the O. P. No. 2 protested the petitioner did not pay heed and even went to the extent of assaulting her. In Kartick 1385 B. S. the petitioner and his mother snatched away the ornaments of the O. P. No. 2 and drove her away. Since then, the petitioner did not obtain any information about the O. P. No. 2. Ultimately, it was stated by the O. P. No. 2, the petitioner married the said Ganga Rani on the 19th of Ashar 1386 B. S. The O. P. No. 2 submitted that she was unable to maintain herself. On this ground, she prayed for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, who was the O. P. in the case before the learned Magistrate, repudiated all the allegations of the O. P. No. 2. On behalf of O. P. No. 2, who was the petitioner in the court of the learned Magistrate, 5 witnesses, including herself were examined, 4 witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner (O. P. in the court of the learned Magistrate ). ( 3 ) ON a consideration of the evidence on the record, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Belpur, allowed the prayer for maintenance under section 125 of the Cr. P. C. ( 4 ) AGAINST that order of the learned Magistrate this revisional application has been flied by the petitioner husband. ( 5 ) MR. Chittaranjan Bag has appeared for the petitioner and Mrs. Alokananda Basu has appeared for the State. O. P. No. 1. None has appeared for the O. P. No. 2 the wife. Mr. Bag has criticized the order of the learned Magistrate mainly on the ground that the approach of the learned Magistrate has not been correct. He has argued that the marriage between the petitioner and Ganga Rani has not been proved. O. P. No. 1. None has appeared for the O. P. No. 2 the wife. Mr. Bag has criticized the order of the learned Magistrate mainly on the ground that the approach of the learned Magistrate has not been correct. He has argued that the marriage between the petitioner and Ganga Rani has not been proved. He has further submitted that a case under section 494 of the I. P. C. has been filed and during the pendency of that case no conclusion that the petitioner has married the second time should be reached. Mrs. Basu bas supported the judgment of the learned Magistrate. She bas contended that the judgment of the learned Magistrate is well based on evidence. ( 6 ) IT appears that the learned Magistrate sometime did not approach the matter straight way, but from rather different angles. Still, if it is found that the ultimate result reached by the learned Magistrate is supported by evidence the revisional court would not interfere. ( 7 ) THE case of the O. P. No. 2, the life, has been that she was driven away by the husband, after his involvement with Ganga Rani. It is also stated that ultimately the petitioner married Ganga Rani. It is not disputed that the petitioner married the O. P. No. 2 according the Hindu rites and customs. That the O. P. No. 2 resided with the petitioner for sometime is also not disputed. That at present the O. P. No. 2 is living separately from the husband, is also a matter beyond controversy. Now, under section 125 of the Cr. P. C. , the husband is bound to maintain the wife even if she lives separately. This should be the straight approach. The wife would be deprived of right of maintenance, if it is proved that she has no valid ground for living separately. The second proviso to sub-section 3 of Section 125 lays down that if the husband suffers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any ground of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under the section notwithstanding such offer, if he Is satisfied that there Is just ground for so doing. Therefore, the principle, which is immanent all through is that the husband, under ordinary circumstances is bound to maintain the wife, even if she is living separately but that the Court may consider the ground on the part of the wife for living separately. The explanation to sub-section 3 of Section 125 clearly lays down that if the husband bas contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wifes refusal to live with him. In this case, that exactly is the allegation of the wife. On the point of the second marriage of the petitioner with Ganga Rani, several witnesses have spoken to. P. W. 1 is the Priest. He affirms that he got the petitioner married to Ganga Rani and he officiated as the Priest. It does not appear that his evidence has been shaken during cross-examination. P. W. 2 is the maternal uncle of the O. P. No. 2. He bas narrated that the petitioner drove away the O. P. No. 2 from his house after assaulting. He has also referred to the incident of marriage between the petitioner and the O. P. Nothing damaging during cross-examination has come out, so far as this witness is concerned. P. W. 3 bas stated that at present the petitioner resides with Ganga Rani. He has asserted in his cross-examination that he saw Ganga Rani ill the house of O. P. Similar is the statement of P. W. 4 the brother of the O. P. No. 2. And P. W. 5 is the O. P. No. 2 herself. As against that, there is the evidence of three witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner. O. P. W. 1 is the petitioner himself. O. P. W. 2 just states that the petitioner did not marry any other lady. Ganga Rani. O. P. W. 3 also denied that the petitioner married Ganga Rani. O. P. W. 4 is a moharrar of a Registration office and his evidence is of no materiality on the point. Therefore, besides the petitioner, two other witnesses repudiated the marriage between the petitioner and Ganga Rani. As against that, there is the weighty evidence of the Priest and three other witnesses. O. P. W. 4 is a moharrar of a Registration office and his evidence is of no materiality on the point. Therefore, besides the petitioner, two other witnesses repudiated the marriage between the petitioner and Ganga Rani. As against that, there is the weighty evidence of the Priest and three other witnesses. If upon such evidence, the learned Magistrate came to a finding that the petitioner had married the second time, that finding cannot be called as without basis or perverse. It is not the question whether any other finding on the same evidence was possible; for even if some other conclusion was possible the conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate cannot be disturbed because of the disagreement. In revisional application, the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. What is to be found is whether the conclusion reached is not founded on any evidence or contrary to the trend of evidence or perverse. The evidence on record bas already been discussed. It is quite legitimate to come to a conclusion about the second marriage, as the learned Magistrate has done, on the basis of the materials on the record. There is no illegality in the finding of the learned Magistrate. Even if the second marriage was not strictly proved, the mere association with another woman would be a valid ground on the part of the wife to live separately. There is also evidence that the O. P. was driven out. Such being the state of evidence, the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in directing the husband to pay maintenance. As regards the means of the husband, evidence is quite satisfactory. It was sought to be made out that the wife herself has some property and has means to maintain herself. True, the wife has some land in her name. Much capital was made out of that. But it has been found out that the petitioner himself has been enjoying the usufructs of even these properties. O. P. W. 1, who is the petitioner in this Court, has stated in his cross-examination that the lands which belonged to the petitioner (O. P. No. 2 here) are at Uttarkena and Damodar has been cultivating the- lands for the 5/6 years. He has further answered that he gave to Damodar in bhag and he used to get the paddy from Damodar. He has further answered that he gave to Damodar in bhag and he used to get the paddy from Damodar. Further, he has made the petition clear by his own statement that this system has all been continuing. So whether the O. P. No. 2 has some land in her name or not, the petitioner himself in his evidence has disclosed that he has been enjoying the usufructs. That apart there is evidence that the petitioner has some other income. In such cases, when the income is not fixed, some guess work is involved. This may not be accurate, but nevertheless it cannot be described as arbitrary or illegal. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence that the husband has sufficient income to maintain the wife. So the finding of the learned Magistrate in that respect also does not suffer from any legal infirmity. ( 8 ) THERE is a slight legal infirmity noticed in this revisional application. The petitioner wife (O. P. No. 2 here), in her petition prayed for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. During her evidence, however, she has stated that she demanded Rs. 100/ - per month as maintenance. That makes it dear that Rs. 100/- per month would be sufficient for her maintenance, whatever might be her statement in the petition. The learned Magistrate failed to notice and so the order is to be modified to that extent. ( 9 ) THE revisional application fails subject to the modification noted above. The order of the learned Magistrate, directing payment of maintenance, is affirmed. But the amount of maintenance is reduced from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 100/- per month, according to English Calendar month. The rest of the order of the learned Magistrate is also affirmed. The Rule is accordingly disposed of.