PANDYA, J. ( 1 ) ). The present petitioner had succeeded in getting maintenance in the Court of J. M. F. C. at Khambat in Criminal Misc. Application No. 108 of 1983. The amount awarded to her was Rs. 150. 00 per month. However, the matter was pursued before the learned District Judge at Kheda where in Revision application No. 148 of 1985, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 4-2-1987 came to the conclusion that the petitioner would fail as she is not a legally wedded wife of the respondent. ( 2 ) ). In the petition the petitioner had clearly stated before the learned Magistrate that her marriage with the respondent took place somewhere in the year 1982 and thereafter they have been staying together as husband and wife, and they have no issue. To this, the respondent-Husband has filed a reply before the trial court at Exh. 8 in which he admits the cohabitation, but refuses a regularly solemnized marriage with the petitioner. He has also come out with a case that he had married with Bai Dahi somewhere in the year 1967 and they have a son and a daughter living of that marriage and of the said two children, son was born on 3-10-1970 and daughter was born on 25-9-1972. For some time said Bai Dahi has left marital home and because of her relatives and at their instance, the present petitioner had come to stay with the respondent and they stayed together as husband and wife. Once this stand of the husband is appreciated the evidence on record of photographs, rationcard where the name of the petitioner is shown as wife of the respondent and other related documents like E. S. I. card etc. would straightaway be understood. ( 3 ) ). The learned Magistrate had relied on the admission in form of previous deposition on oath by the husband in a Criminal Maintenance application filed by the said first wife Dahi. Certified copy of the deposition is produced before the trial Court at Exh. 70. would straightaway be understood. ( 3 ) ). The learned Magistrate had relied on the admission in form of previous deposition on oath by the husband in a Criminal Maintenance application filed by the said first wife Dahi. Certified copy of the deposition is produced before the trial Court at Exh. 70. Now, with regard to entering into the question whether by way of a contradiction the entire deposition could have been brought on record and exhibited, so far as the admission part is concerned, it has been relied on by both the sides, of course, subject to their contentions in that regard and therefore, we will read said Exh. 70 as it is. ( 4 ) ). The relevant portion could be found as could be expected in the examination in chief and it has been his specific case that the petitioner of that case, i. e. , Bai Dahi had ceased to be his wife because they had obtained customary divorce. Now, it has come on record that the present petitioner was moved to file the maintenance application because in the year 1982 Bai Dahi was brought back by the respondent pursuant to a compromise in one of the pending matters where maintenance was either claimed or was ordered but was not claimed and therefore recovery application was filed. ( 5 ) ). The petitioner, therefore, had to leave the house of the respondent because of the return of Bai Dahi. Therefore, the contention, as rightly considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is whether the marriage of the respondent with said Bai Dahi had ended in a divorce and if not, the present petitioner cannot succeed in getting maintenance. , Now, when we turn to the said admission for the purpose of said case of divorce, it categorically appears that at best, meeting of the elders of the Caste was called referred to as nati Panch and divorce between the respondent and the said first wife Bai Dahi was talked about. However, at the meeting only the brother of said Bai Dahi was present and bai Dahi was not there at all. This could be gathered from the fact as stated in the said deposition by the respondent that if the woman is present her signature would be taken on the deed of divorce drawn up at the said meeting. ( 6 ) ). This could be gathered from the fact as stated in the said deposition by the respondent that if the woman is present her signature would be taken on the deed of divorce drawn up at the said meeting. ( 6 ) ). This would indicate that the divorce was talked about in the absence of Bai Dahi and even if we assume that in the community to which the parties belong customary divorce is permissible it could have never taken place in absence of Bai Dahiben, much less could there have been a binding decision given by said Nati Panch only when the brother of Bai Dahi was present and divorce was talked about. No custom was pleaded as to indicate that even in the absence of woman the Nati Panch can dictate divorce and it would become effective between the parties. ( 7 ) ). The admission thus relied on by the learned Magistrate has been considered by the learned Sessions Judge in the aforesaid light and he has come to the conclusion that though it is an admission its import has not been correctly appreciated by the learned Magistrate and therefore, the learned Magistrate has totally misdirected himself in appreciating the evidence. ( 8 ) ). Now, this finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is very much within the province of his revisional jurisdiction and that being the position in this Criminal Revision Application. I would not like to interfere with the aforesaid conclusion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge based on the aforesaid appreciation of evidence. In this view of the matter, I come to the conclusion that the Criminal Revision Application has no substance. Accordingly it is rejected and the Rule is discharged. .