C. A. RAHIM, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision arises out of order dated 11. 4. 1986 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions judge, Basti in Revision No. 255 of 1985 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) 1st Court, Basti in Misc. Case No. 14 of 1981. ( 2 ) THE revisionist case, in short, is that she was married to the respondent No. 2, who was an employee of Air Force 17-18 years ago and on 11. 12. 1970 she gave birth to a female child, namely, Shashi Bala. The allegation is that the respondent No. 2 in collusion with his father wanted to contact another marriage started torturing and harassing the revisionist. In the first week of January, 1981 father of the respondent No. 2 assaulted her badly and thrown her out of the house threatening with dire consequences. The revisionist had to go to her fathers house with her daughter, wrote several letters to the respondent No. 2 requesting him to take her back or offer subsistance allowance for their maintenance and education to her daughter. Letters were not replied. On the other hand the respondent No. 2 married another lady, named, Pushpa Rani, an application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. was filed by the revisionist in the Trial Court, who after taking evidence of both the parties allowed the application and granted Rs. 250/-per month as maintenance to the revisionist and Rs. 150/- per month as maintenance to her daughter. A revision was preferred by the respondent No. 2 before the Sessions Court and the learned additional Sessions Judge took an erroneous view of law and fact and allowed the revision by setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate. Hence this revision. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the Revisional Court cannot assess the evidence and substitute its own finding by disbelieving the statement of the revisionist and her witnesses and also disbelieving the documentary evidence filed in connection with the marriage and relationship of the revisionist with the respondent No. 2 without giving proper reason. He has referred a decision reported in A. C. C. 1986, page 286 (SC) and submitted that the assessment of evidence during the pendency of the revision is not permissible. He has referred a decision reported in A. C. C. 1986, page 286 (SC) and submitted that the assessment of evidence during the pendency of the revision is not permissible. So the Court has got no jurisdiction to substitute its own finding of fact and reverse the finding of the learned magistrate, holding in favour of the revisionist. It has been decided in that reported case that the court has committed an error in making reassessment of the evidence and coming to a finding that the appellant No. 2 was not a legitimate child of the respondent. ( 4 ) UNDER Section 399 Cr. P. C. the Sessions Judge has all the powers exercised by the High Court under Section 401 (1) Cr. P. C. The said section provides that the High Court may exercise any of the powers conferred in a Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 380 and 391, I. P. C. Section 386 (d)I. P. C. provides that the Appellate Court may in an appeal or from any other order alter or reverse such order. In terms of these sections the power of the Revisional Court is found enough to cause interference with the finding of fact but a long standing practice has grown up to confine exercise of jurisdiction only to questions of law [harprasad Das (1913) 1940 Cal, 477, 500 (FB ). But on various occasions the High Court did interfered with the finding of fact where there are very exceptional grounds for such interference. When there is mis-assessment or misreading of evidence or it is necessary to prevent failure of justice or finding of fact is not based on evidence on record and other similar circumstances. So the rule of practice which has been developed in our country is that interference by the Revisional Court is generally made when there is glaring aspects to do it for ends of justice. So it is not true that a Revisional Court cannot assess the evidence at all. Substitution of own finding by the learned Revisional Court only arises when revisional Court is empowered to enter into the facts of the case which is not generally done in most of the cases. Honble Supreme Court has reasserted the position once again in the decision reported above. In the light of the established principles of law it is necessary to examine the finding of the learned Addl. Honble Supreme Court has reasserted the position once again in the decision reported above. In the light of the established principles of law it is necessary to examine the finding of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and to see whether he has exceeded the limit. With regard to the marriage of the revisionist it appears that she has examined herself, the Nai or barber (P. W. 2) and the Pandit, who conducted the marriage (P. W. 3) as regards P. W. 1 learned additional Sessions Judge relied upon much on her conduct in Court when she identified Banshi dhar brother of her husband as respondent No. 2. But the learned Judge did not consider that she at once stated that due to lapse of four years and due to the fact that Banshi Dhar resumbled to the appearance of her husband, she committed the mistake. Learned Judge also did not consider that her husband Was not present at all in the said Court Room while she was asked to identify her husband. The learned Magistrate ought not to have allowed the said exercise in the absence of her husband in the Court Room. If in presence of her husband in the Court Room she would have identified her probher as her husband it could have been used against her subject to oral and documentary evidence produced in connection with the marriage and the matrimonial relations in between them. P. W. 2 Barbar has stated about the ceremony of marriage in between the revisionist and respondent No. 2 in his presence including the fact that she was driven away 3-4 years ago. In cross-examination he has stated that the revisionist was residing with her parents at village Belhar since 10-12 years. The learned Judge has discussed the petitioners case in the light of the evidence of P. W. 2 and found that the story of driving out of Gulabpati from her matrimonial house was false. He has also given the verdict after assessment of the evidence of this witness that Gulabpati never went to village Dubaula, i. e. , her husbands village. The liberty taken by the Revisional Court in substituting his own finding is not permissible. He could have disbelieved that part of P. W. 2s evidence but could not say that Gulabpatis case is false or that she never went to her husbands house. The liberty taken by the Revisional Court in substituting his own finding is not permissible. He could have disbelieved that part of P. W. 2s evidence but could not say that Gulabpatis case is false or that she never went to her husbands house. ( 5 ) P. W. 3 has stated that he was a Pandit of Belhar village and was the family priest of Gulabpati. He was residing close to the house of Gulabpati but could not identify Murlidhar, the respondent and tell the Gotra of Murlidhar. The learned Judge disbelieved his statement on this account. The revisionist has examined P. Ws. 5, 6 and 8 who are uncles of her husband Murlidhar. P. W. 5 was a Pattidar and has stated that he did not know any of them. But in connection with another case he has deposed that Murlidhar was his nephew and that he was married to Gulabpati according to hindu rites and customs some 18-19 years ago. The said statement was recorded on 24. 8. 1984 whereas he was examined in connection with this case prior to that i. e. , on 10. 8. 1984. Certified copy of the said statement has been filed before the learned Trial Court on 17. 9. 1984. So it appears that the said admission of P. W. 5 was made after the examination of this witness in connection with this case and certified copy was naturally filed after about more than a month. The learned Judge did not rely on this document as P. W. 5 was not contradicted with the said fact under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. It is true that without controverting the said witness under Section 145 of the Evidence Act the credibility of P. W. 5 cannot be impeached. But the fact that came up before the Court by filing certified copy of the statement could have been considered in these circumstances. Moreover, Section 145 of the Evidence Act has no application in this case. It is applicable to the statement which was made prior to his deposition but obviously it was not so. It is significant that P. W. 5 being an uncle of O. P. No. 2 did not identify either O. P. No. 2 or Gulabpati in connection with this case. It is applicable to the statement which was made prior to his deposition but obviously it was not so. It is significant that P. W. 5 being an uncle of O. P. No. 2 did not identify either O. P. No. 2 or Gulabpati in connection with this case. ( 6 ) P. W. 6 and P. W. 8 Parmatma Prasad and Narendra Dev, two uncles of the respondent No. 2 tendered on behalf of the revisionist in the Trial Court did not identify Gulabpati for obvious reasons. So the case rests on the evidence of P. W. 4 Suresh Datt, cousin of the complainant and p. W. 7 Uma Pati, real brother of the complainant, and the documentary evidence tendered and filed on behalf of Gulabpati. The learned Sessions Judge did not consider the evidence of P. W. 4 and P. W. 7 on the ground that they are interested witnesses. He did not rely upon the documents produced by the complainant on the ground that those documents were not legally proved. He has also considered the fact that during the enquiry about the marital status of Murlidhar while he was in the Air Force it was revealed that the was a bachelor. The said fact came out much after the alleged marriage of Murlidhar with Gulabpathi. The learned Judge has taken that circumstance against the complainant and held accordingly. But he has not considered Ext. 1 a letter written by Murlidhar, the respondent, to his grand-father, R. K. Pandey. The letter is dated 18. 8. 1971. This letter has been proved by the complainant. The learned Judge has held that it was not proved by proper person. It is not expected that he grand-father of her husband would come and depose against Murlidhar. It might be that Gulabpati did not see Murlidhar to write the said letter but as a wife it is not difficult for her to recognise hand-writing and signature of murlidhar. In that letter Murlidhar wrote "if police would enquire about the marriage of murlidhar the (his family member) would tell them that he was not married". It was probably done for getting some benefit in the Air Force or to corroborate his false statement made before the Air-Force authority. It clearly indicates that he was a married man on that date, i. e. , 18. 8. 1971. It was probably done for getting some benefit in the Air Force or to corroborate his false statement made before the Air-Force authority. It clearly indicates that he was a married man on that date, i. e. , 18. 8. 1971. This fact should not have gone out of consideration of the learned Judge. There are other letters too which has proved long association of Gulabpati with Murlidhar. Ext. 2 is letter written by Pushpa Devi, husbands sister of Gulabpati enquiring about her daughters (Shashi balas) consideration of health. It was written on 2. 5. 1970. Ext. 8 is letter dated 21. 9. 1969 written by Pushpa (Nand) addressed to Gulabpati as Bhabhi and enquiring about the health of munni daughter of Gulabpati. Ext. 4 is letter dated 22. 2. 1969, Ext. 5 is a letter dated 1. 2. 1971 written by R. K. Pandey grand-father of Murlidhar to Gulabpati, Ext. 6 is the certificate dated 2. 9. 1982 issued by Gram Pradhan about the marriage of Gulabpati and parentage of Shashi Bala, ext. Kha-2 dated 20. 1. 1982 is an inquiry report of A. D. O. Panchat addressed to District panchayat Raj Officer for enrolling the name of Gulabpati in Gram Sabha Register, stating that gulabpati is the wife of Murlidhar and Shashi Bala is his daughter, Ext. k-Kha/25 is voters list dated 19. 11. 1983, wherein Gulabpati has been described as wife of Murlidhar. These documents clearly describe Gulabpati as wife of Murlidhar and all these documents should not have been brushed aside by the learned Judge in one stroke without stating reasons that those have not been duly proved by the complainant. ( 7 ) AFTER going through the judgment of the learned Judge it appears to me that he gave much stress about the misidentification of Gulabpati in the Court Room. But I have already observed that the circumstances and absence of Murlidhar in the Court Room were not considered by him. At every stage he has repeated the said fact in his judgment. He went out to that extent that she was present during the hearing of the revision before him on many occasions and it did not seem to him that she was a Pardah Nashin lady though there is no evidence to the contrary. So it appears that he has formed an opinion and then proceeded to analyse the evidence in that context. So it appears that he has formed an opinion and then proceeded to analyse the evidence in that context. So I am constrained to hold that such extension of jurisdiction of a Revisional Court is not permissible. On the other hand I find that the learned Magistrate has analysed the documents in proper perspective, gone into the facts of the case and came to the finding about the marriage and allegation of Gulabpati. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the marriage has not been proved by observing all the ceremonies. According to him the marriage of Murlidhar and Gulabpati has not been properly held, living as husband and wife and being treated by public as such is quite sufficient to prove the fact of marriage in a proceeding under Section 125, Cr. P. C. (A. I. R. 1953 orissa 10 ). In the decision reported in A. I. R. 1932 Cal. 866 it has been held that where the marriage is alleged to have taken place some 17-18 years ago and there was evidence that priest who solemnised the marriage was dead, that the parties had lived together as a husband and wife for many years and passport issued about 8 years back so described them, it would not be reasonable to expect very strict proof of actual celebration of the marriage. So what has come out in the evidence of P. W. 1 the complainant, P. W. 2 the Barber, P. W. 3 the Pandit, P. W. 4 cousin of the complainant and P. W. 7 real brother of the complainant and from the documentary evidence go to show that Gulabpati was married to Murlidhar and they lived as husband and wife and the said marriage it is still subsisting. The learned Magistrate has also taken into account the neglect and refusal to maintain Gulabpati the earning capacity of Murlidhar and incapability of gulabpati to maintain herself while awarding maintenance. After considering all these facts and circumstances I find that the learned Judge has exceeded the jurisdiction in imposing a verdict which is not based on evidence on record and it must be struck down. The revision is, therefore, allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned IV Additional sessions Judge on 11. 4. 1986 in Revision No. 255 of 1985 is hereby set aside. Interim stay order dated 9. 5. The revision is, therefore, allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned IV Additional sessions Judge on 11. 4. 1986 in Revision No. 255 of 1985 is hereby set aside. Interim stay order dated 9. 5. 1991 is hereby vacated. .