JUDGMENT Mr. B.P. Singh, J. - This is an application for revision against the judgment and order dated 6.9.1988 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, in Criminal Revision No. 56 of 1988- Jamuna v. Smt. Panvarsi & Others. 2. An application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code was moved by Mst. Panvarsi in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Azamgarh with the allegations that shown married to opposite party Jamuna about 30-years back in accordance with Hindu religious rites. Till 1988 the applicant perfumed all the duties and functions of a wife and live with her husband Jumuna. The habits of Jamuna took a turn and he become corrupt and started taking drinks and intoxicating drugs. No issue was born out of wedlock and Jamuna used to taunt the applicant that she was incapable of producing child. In December, 1985, Smt. Panvarsi was turned out of the house by Jamuna and in spite of intervention by the villagers, Jamuna was not willing to keep Smt. Panvarsi with him. Jamuna has also failed to provide with maintenance to her. 3. The claim was contested by Jamuna with the allegations that it was wrong to say that Smt. Panvarsi was his legally wedded wife, originally, Smt. Panvarsi was married to one Shyam Deo and cut of this marriage Smt. Panvarsi had given birth to two children cut of whom one son Budhai aged 36 years is still alive, Budhai is in possession over the property left by his father S hyam Deo Smt. Panvarsi is a women of design and the succeeded in having illicit relationship with Jamuna. Smt. Panvarsi was never married to Jamuna in accordance with Hindu religious rites. Smt. Panvarsi lived with Jamuna for a number of years and one day she left the house after taking with her all the ornaments etc. 4. Parties had led evidence before the learned Magistrate in support of their respective contentions. The learned Magistrate held that Smt. Panvarsi was the wife of Jamuna who had failed to maintain her. Consequently, a maintenance allowance at' the rate of 200/- per month with affect from 31.1.1985 was granted. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, Jamuna want in revision and his revision application (Criminal Revision No. 56 of 1988) was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. 6. Consequently, a maintenance allowance at' the rate of 200/- per month with affect from 31.1.1985 was granted. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, Jamuna want in revision and his revision application (Criminal Revision No. 56 of 1988) was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. 6. It is against the above judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that Smt. Panvarsi has come in revision to this Court. 7. The revision was admitted on 29.10.1988. Jamuna has put in appearance. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. The learned Magistrate has given detailed reasons in his judgment for his conclusion that Smt. Panvarsi was the legally wedded wife of Jamuna and Jumuna had failed to maintain her. The learned Sessions Judge upset the above conclusion of the learned Magistrate and has substituted his own findings. One of the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge is that in the Kutubb Register of village Bibipur Smt. Panvarsi was shown to be residing in the family of Badhai. The learned Sessions Judge was not justified in upseting the finding of the learned Magistrate on the basis of this entry in the Kutubb Registerof village Bibipur. It may be that Smt. Panvarsi is residing in the family of Budhai from the year 1984. The learned Magistrate has placed reliance upon the entry in the Kutubb Register of village Asurhi wherein Jamuna and Smt. Panvarsi were shown to be residing in the house and Smt. Parvarsi was shown as the wife of Jamuna. Of course, Smt. Parvarsi could not give the detail of her marriage in her cross-examination. But, when Jamuna had himself admitted that Smt. Panvarai had lived with him for more then 10-years as his wife in his house, the burden lay upon Jamuna to rebut the presumption that Smt Panvarsi was not his wife. 9. In bearing a revision against an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code it is not desirable to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Magistrate simply on the ground that another view is possible on the evidence which was adduced by the parties. The Revisipnal Court is not expected to substitute its own findings in place of the findings recorded by the Magistrate, who had the occasion to see the demeanour of the witnesses when their evidence was recorded. 10. The Revisipnal Court is not expected to substitute its own findings in place of the findings recorded by the Magistrate, who had the occasion to see the demeanour of the witnesses when their evidence was recorded. 10. It is also significant to note in this case that Jamuna had admitted in the Court of the learned Magistrate that he was still willing to keep Smt. Panvarsi with him. The contention of the applicant's Counsel that Jamuna had agreed to keep Smt. Panvarsi with him even at this late stage was a circumstance which goes to show that all through Jamuna treated Smt. Panvarsi as his wife. The contention has force. 11. In this view of the matter, the application for revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 6.9.1988 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh are hereby set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge for deciding the cash afresh in view of the observations made above, the learned Sessions Judge shall also call the parties before him and will see whether reconciliation was possible become both the parties in their statements have shown willingness to live together.