Judgment : M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THE unfortunate respondents, the wife and child who claimed maintenance are deaf and dumb by birth. ( 2 ) THE wife Mrs. Saraswathi, filed the petition on her behalf and on behalf of her minor son, claiming maintenance from her husband, the petitioner here in M. C. No 21 of 1990, on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor. On enquiry, the learned Judicial Magistrate directed the husband the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 500/ -p. m. , to each of the respondents herein, from the date of application. Being aggrieved over this, the petitioner/husband filed this revision. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the wife six witnesses were examined and on behalf of the husband, two witnesses, including the petitioner were examined. According to the wife, the marriage was performed between the petitioner and the 1st respondent on 26-1-1975. Regarding the factum of marriage, the witnesses who attended the marriage had adduced evidence. After marriage, the 2nd respondent was born out of the wedlock. P. Ws. 2, 3, 4and 5 would speak about the birth of the child, the 2nd respondent herein, after one year subsequent to the said marriage. ( 4 ) THE peculiar feature in this case is that the 1st respondent/wife, who is deaf and dumb by birth was given in marriage with the petitioner, since the parents of the 1st petitioner thought that the petitioner who is closely related would properly take care of the 1st respondent. Unfortunately, one year after the marriage, the 2nd respondent/ child was born who was also deaf and dumb. After some years, the 2nd respondent was admitted in the deaf and dumb school, at Madurai. Since the mother of the petitioner/husband aged about 80 years, was mentally deranged, the 1st respondent/wife was asked to stay in a separate house. Thereafter, the petitioner husband did not take care of her there by he neglected to maintain her. Therefore, the 1st respondent had to leave the house with the child, and, join her mother P. W. 4-Babi Ammal. ( 5 ) R. W 1- Sivananjaiah, examined on behalf of the petitioner /husband would speak that there was no marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. But he would further state in his deposition and this evidence is not in any way helpful to the case of the husband. ( 5 ) R. W 1- Sivananjaiah, examined on behalf of the petitioner /husband would speak that there was no marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. But he would further state in his deposition and this evidence is not in any way helpful to the case of the husband. ( 6 ) THE husband, who was examined as R. W. 2 would simply deny the marriage and the birth of the child, the 2nd respondent herein. The learned Judicial Magistrate, on consideration of the entire materials and relying upon various decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court, held that the 1st respondent is the legally wedded wife, and she is entitled to maintenance for herself and for the 2nd respondent, the minor child. While coming to such a conclusion, the learned Judicial Magistrate has reproduced the observation of the Apex Court in Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothia and another1 which is as follows: in this appeal, by special leave, we are called upon to interpret a benign provision enacted to ameliorate the economic condition of neglected wives and discarded divorcees, namely. Sec. 125, Cr. P. C. Welfare laws must be so read as to be effective delivery systems of the salutary objects sought to be served by the Legislature and when the beneficiaries are the weaker sections, like destitute women, the spirit of Art. 15 (3) of the Constitution must be light the meaning of the section. The Constitution is a pervasive omni-presence brooding over the meaning and transforming the values of every measure. So, Sec. 125 and sister clauses must receive a compassionate expansion of sense that the words used permit In this generous jurisdiction a broader perception and appreciation of the facts and their bearing must govern the verdict not chopping little logic or tinkering With burden of proof. ( 7 ) MR. Gopinath, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that marriage was not proved, and there is no proof to hold that the 2nd respondent was born to the 1. A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 362 : 1979 Crl. L. J. 151. petitioner. He would also submit that P. W. 2 admits, that after the marriage, the bridegroom and bride did not visit the temple, and as such, the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was not a valid one. A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 362 : 1979 Crl. L. J. 151. petitioner. He would also submit that P. W. 2 admits, that after the marriage, the bridegroom and bride did not visit the temple, and as such, the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was not a valid one. I do not find any force in this submission, because the evidence of P. W. 2 would show that the marriage was performed under the caste custom, in a simple ceremony. She would also say that if it is a simple marriage, the couple would not visit any temple after the marriage. Moreover, regarding the performance and validity of the marriage, the Court below has elaborately considered and come to the definite conclusion, that the witnesses proved that the marriage has been validly performed. ( 8 ) LEARNED senior counsel has cited two decisions, one by the Bombay High Court and another by the Apex Court, arrived at on a single case in Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shiv ram Adhav and another2, and 1988 Cr1. L. J. 7933, respectively, to show that the wife can become a legally wedded wife, only when there was a valid marriage, and that legally wedded wife alone can claim maintenance. There is no dispute in this proposition. The fact remains that there are ample materials available on record in this case, to show that there is a valid marriage, as correctly found by the Court below, on appreciation of the entire evidence adduced on either side. ( 9 ) YET another submission made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner should receive due consideration. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner /husband has summoned the attendance register relating to the students studying in deaf and dumb school, at Ooty, in which the 2nd re 2. 1983 Crl. L. J. 259. 3. 1988 Crl. L. J. 793. spondent was studying for some years. Though it was received by the Court below, on the summons issued under section 91 Cr. P. C. at the instance of the petitioner /husband, this was not marked for the best reasons known to the petitioner/husband. But the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken note of the said document, and held that the attendance register also would reveal that the petitioner/husband is the father of the 2nd respondent. P. C. at the instance of the petitioner /husband, this was not marked for the best reasons known to the petitioner/husband. But the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken note of the said document, and held that the attendance register also would reveal that the petitioner/husband is the father of the 2nd respondent. The learned Magistrate would also observe that this document was not deliberately marked by the husband, in order to suppress the fact that he is the father of the 2nd respondent. In my view, this observation is quite unwarranted. Unless this document is marked through either of the party or as a Court document, the trial Court cannot comment upon it, and it cannot take such a document as additional evidence to support the case of either of the party. So, with regard to the observation in respect of this document may not be correct, and the same is quite wrong. However, there are other materials as elaborately discussed by the Court below, to show that the 1st respondent/wife is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent/minor son was born to them. ( 10 ) THE factual aspects, relating to performance of marriage, and the birth of child, have been considered by the trial Court, and a clear finding has been arrived at, on those analytical consideration. These findings of fact cannot be disturbed in this revision, as held by the Apex Court, in Pathumma and another v. Muhammad4, here under: The questions whether the appellant No. 1 was the married wife of the respondent and whether the appellant 4. A. I. R. 1986 S. C. 1436. No. 2 was the legitimate or illegitimate child of the respondent, are pre-eminently questions of fact. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence, as adduced by the parties, held that the appellant No. 1 was not the wife of the respondent. He further held on the basis of the evidence on record that the appellant No. 2 was the illegitimate child of the respondent. We are afraid, the learned Judge of the High Court committed an error in making a re-assessment of the evidence and coming to a finding that the appellant No. 2 was not the illegitimate child of the respondent. We are afraid, the learned Judge of the High Court committed an error in making a re-assessment of the evidence and coming to a finding that the appellant No. 2 was not the illegitimate child of the respondent. We have ourselves considered the evidence on record and we agree with the learned Magistrate, who had taken much pains in analysing the evidence, that the appellant No. 2 was the illegitimate child of the respondent. The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction was not justified in substituting its own view for that of the learned Magistrate on a question of fact. In the circumstances stated above, I feel that the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs. 500/-p. m. , to each of the respondents from the date of application is valid in law and does not suffer from any infirmity. ( 11 ) IN the result, the revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.