Judgment Petitioner seeks to revise the order of the Court of Session, Manjeri Division awarding maintenance to the 1st respondent. She moved, the court of the Magistrate for maintenance for herself and her minor son 2nd respondent, claiming themselves to be the wife and child of petitioner. Magistrate awarded maintenance to the child and declined maintenance to the wife. Magistrate found that a certain relationship existed between the petitioner and 1st respondent. According to him, it was only “Sambandam” and sambandam according to learned magistrate, “is only an illegitimate cohabitation not legally recognised”. The magistrate has apparently misdirected and mis-informed himself on a question of law. “Sambandam” is the pristine form of a legal marriage recognised among the marumakkathayies of the erstwhile Malabar. A passage from Malabar and Aliyasanthana Law by P.R.Sundara Aiyar is apposite in this context. It is said: “Sambandam is the generic term applied in Malabar to marriage as understood by the Marumakkathayam communities. It has certain local varieties with slightly varying incidents.” Authority is legion, for this proposition. Sambandam was thus a valid form of marriage recognised in customary law in the Malabar area from where this case arises. 2. Learned Sessions Judge in para 7 of the order found that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 proved a valid marriage between the parties. He also noticed that “Saptapadi” was performed in front of a lighted lamp and that the evidence established a valid marriage. It is relevant to note in this context that the magistrate also found that a certain relationship existed between the parties, though the legal incidents were different, according to him. It is not a case of the revisional court, coming to a different view on appreciation of evidence. 3. The view of the Sessions Judge is correct and he was justified in revising the order of the magistrate, on law. The magistrate visualised a legal marriage to be something far more than what it is required to be under Sec.125, Crl.P.C. Any form of valid customary marriage would be valid in law. 3. The view of the Sessions Judge is correct and he was justified in revising the order of the magistrate, on law. The magistrate visualised a legal marriage to be something far more than what it is required to be under Sec.125, Crl.P.C. Any form of valid customary marriage would be valid in law. In Sumitra Devi v. Bhikan Chowdhary, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 765, the Supreme Court observed that: “There can be a marriage acceptable in law according to custom which do not insist on performance of rites like Saptapadi.” In the instant case, there was a valid marriage not only according to custom, but according to Hindu Law, in the sense that the basic essential of a marriage viz. Saptapadi was performed. 4. Then counsel submitted that petitioner was already married to a Namboodiri lady. As rightly pointed out by the Sessions Judge in para 9 of his order, there is no evidence to show whether there was such a marriage or whether the marriage was prior to or after the marriage with the 1st respondent. I am not inclined to think that th6 court of Session exceeded its jurisdiction or committed an illegality, irregularity or impropriety, in reversing the order of the magistrate. He did not appreciate the evidence and enter a different conclusion. That cannot be done Fathumma v. Mohammed, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1436. But, on evidence which the magistrate did not reject the Sessions Judge found, a valid marriage. The view of the magistrate that Sambandam is not a valid marriage is untenable. Revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.