B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dt. 24-11-1986 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Bhavnagar in Cri Revn. Appln. No. 36/86 by which the Revision Application of the petitioner was partly allowed. And it is ordered that the original applicant-Kashibehn step-mother of the petitioner is entitled for the maintenance of Rs. 125. 00 per month instead of Rs. 200. 00 per month from the date of the application as ordered by the learned J. M. F. C. Gadhda and also confirmed the order passed by the learned J. M. F. C. Gadhda awarding Rs. 50 by way of costs of the application to the applicant-step- mother. ( 2 ) MR. Gandhi L. A. for the petitioner submits that in this case the marriage of the original-applicant with the father of the present petitioner has not been proved. Therefore the applicant who is the step-mother of the petitioner is not entitled for any maintenance. There is a concurrent finding of fact that respondent No. 1 is a married wife of the father of the petitioner and thereafter this Court will not re-appreciate the evidence in a petition which is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I Hence this contention raised by Mr. Gandhi has no substance and requires to be rejected. ( 3 ) MR. Gandhi L. A. for the petitioner further submits that being a step-mother the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to maintenance even if this Court comes to the conclusion that there was a marriage between the respondent No. 1 and the father of the petitioner. However this point is concluded by the judgment of this Court in the case of Havabehn Karimbhai v. Razakbhai 19 GLR 237 in which it has been held that a step-mother being the lawful wife of the father is also entitled to maintenance under Section 125 (1) Cr. P. C. and therefore this contention of Mr. Gandhi is also required to be rejected ( 4 ) MR. P. C. and therefore this contention of Mr. Gandhi is also required to be rejected ( 4 ) MR. Gandhi next contented that the applicant step-mother has not proved that she was neglected by the petitioner However the very fact that she was not provided with the maintenance and she was not kept and looked after by the petitioner itself will suggest that she was neglected by her step-son i e the present petitioner Therefore this contention also has no substance and requires to be rejected ( 5 ) MR. Gandhi further submits that the petitioner is at present aged about 75 and a Judicial notice can be taken by this Court that a man at the age of 75 will not be in a position to maintain himself and therefore the judgment and order passed by the Courts below are required to be quashed and set aside This court cannot take judicial nets of such matters It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and upon the capacity of the person to earn even at the age of 70 or 75 and the Court has to decide the case before it as per the evidence And in this case both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence which is on the record of this case and the learned Sessions Judge has also came to the conclusion that the petitioner is capable of earning by doing carpentry work In view of this finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below it is not open to this Court to interfere with the said finding in a petition which is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Thus this contention has also get no merit and requires to be rejected and it is rejected ( 6 ) NO other contentions have been raised and there is no merit or substance in this petition Hence it requires to be dismissed Accordingly this petition fails and is dismissed Rule discharged (RPV) order accordingly .