RABIN BHATTACHARYYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against order dated 14. 9. 93 in Criminal Revision 38 of 1994 arising out of Misc. Case No. 64 of ,, 1989. The motion arose out of an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Purulia. in Mic. Case No. 64 of 1989 dated 20. 2. 1993. ( 2 ) TO resolve the dispute between the parties, the history of the litigation is , briefly indicated : both the petitioner and the respondent were married quite a long past at the Chinnamasta Temple, where ritual ceremonies were performed in letter. No dark cloud hovered on the marital life on the two, but with the passage of time, the cloud was set in and the parties fell against each other. Ultimately, the petitioner had to endure the brutalities of the husband aided by the members of his family, which continued to survive until she was driven out by the husband from the marital home. The petitioner's attempt for reunion at the marital home was stalled by the inexorable attitude of the husband and the members of his family when she was constrained to file an application for relief under Section 125 of the Crpc. ( 3 ) THE claim has been disputed by Subal Swarnakar, the husband on the plea that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, opposite party as highlighted by the petitioner, is a myth. The story of demand of dowry as cultivated by the petitioner in her petition for relief is a ruse. He married one Pari Sharnakar quite a decade ago with whom, he is living under the same roof. The attempt of the petitioner is to filch money from the respondent-opposite party under the garb of imaginary marriage. The income of his has been inflated to snatch an order from the Court for maintenance. ( 4 ) THE Court of first instance has disbelieved the case of the petitioner, which, ultimately, on motion to the Court of Additional District Judge suffered a set back, where the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed maintenance to the petitioner Rs. 300/- per month, which became the subject-matter of criticism before the instant Court. ( 4 ) THE Court of first instance has disbelieved the case of the petitioner, which, ultimately, on motion to the Court of Additional District Judge suffered a set back, where the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed maintenance to the petitioner Rs. 300/- per month, which became the subject-matter of criticism before the instant Court. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has attached the order of the Additional Sessions Judge on the counts that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent opposite party did not gather any assurance from any quarter. In absence of such evidence, the maintenance awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge suffers from perversity. According to him, the proof of marriage is a sine qua non for maintenance, in addition to the fact that the petitioner is obliged to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that she was the victim of neglect. ( 6 ) FURTHER, another side fact has been cultivated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Court of revision is divested of jurisdiction to appraise the evidence. The Court of revision cannot ride on the back of the Court of first instance to appraise the evidence, which is not the domain of the Court of revision. It must back to its own saddle to judge the legality or propriety of the order and no further. ( 7 ) TO inspire his claim, he has taken me through the materials on record to contend that the story of marriage is an allegation on paper without anything more as the evidence adduced is insubstantial to hold the marriage between the two. The story of torture inflicted on her all along remained in a fluid stage, which can never be the base form awarding maintenance. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent opposite party (wife) has refuted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the evidence is weighty which adds a feather to the cap. These are the broad facts on the anvil of which, the parties have crossed their swords on the floor of the Court. ( 9 ) HAVING given my anxious consideration to the claim of the parties, the claim of maintenance in a proceeding under Section 125 is pre-eminently based on marriage and the neglect. These are the broad facts on the anvil of which, the parties have crossed their swords on the floor of the Court. ( 9 ) HAVING given my anxious consideration to the claim of the parties, the claim of maintenance in a proceeding under Section 125 is pre-eminently based on marriage and the neglect. These two factors should be proved, in order to sustain relief by a party claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Crpc. There is another additional fact that cannot be lost sight of that the husband had sufficient means to pay. The Wife is further obliged to show that the husband had neglected and refused to maintain her. ( 10 ) IN adjudging the claim of the respective parties, I have meticulously gone through the judgment of the learned Court below, alongwith the evidence on record. There cannot be any shred of doubt that Malati is legally wedded spouse of Subal. ( 11 ) I am not unmindful that there are certain discrepancies about the date, time and hour of attending the parties at Chainnamsta Temple, but the evidence about the marriage is immaculate. On the whole, the evidence is acceptable, which cannot lay any foundation of suspect. ( 12 ) THE standard of proof as required to prove marriage in a proceeding under Section 125 is not so high, as is required in a case under Sections 494, 495, 497 and 498 of the IPC, or a case under the Indian Divorce Act. Even strict proof of Ceremony of marriage is not necessary. Chatidi v. Hemant Kumar,1982 Cr. LJ (NOC) 173. ( 13 ) IT is also available from the evidence, though attempted to be discredited that the parties lived together under the same roof for some time, which goes a long way to prove the marital relationship between the parties. It has been reiterated in Sadhu Mandal v. Sarathibala, 1985 Cr. LJ 979. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has most dexturously argued with skill when caught up with disadvantage that the Court of revision is denuded of power to reappraise the evidence. But it is trite saying that the decision of a Court against which an appeal arose when suffers from illegalities affecting the core of the case and, where there is misappraisement of evidence in coming to a conclusion, a Court of revision is perfectly within its jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence. But it is trite saying that the decision of a Court against which an appeal arose when suffers from illegalities affecting the core of the case and, where there is misappraisement of evidence in coming to a conclusion, a Court of revision is perfectly within its jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence. This is the mandate of Sections 397 and 401 of the Crpc, which cannot be lost sight of by a Court. The order of the learned counsel of the first instance, sufficiently indicates that there is misappraisement of evidence which the Court of revision upon motion rectified it. The discrepancies hinted by the learned Counsel, according to me, are discrepancies of truth. ( 14 ) IN the context of the materials on record, the approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in my view, is a correct approach and there could be no reason to depart from his conclusion, reached by the learned Court below. ( 15 ) INCIDENTALLY, it may be pertinent to mention when raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Court is not vested with jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence being oblivious of the fact that the learned Counsel took the instant Court of revision through the evidence. The petitioner, revisionist, cannot eat the cake and have it. Nor he can reprobate and approbate. I say no, further, since I have agreed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge. ( 16 ) REVERTING back to the plea of neglect, there is adequate evidence which could hardly be ignored by a Court of law in awarding maintenance. Why Malati will live in the house of her parent, unless she is forsaken. Her repeated attempt to restore to marital life as flashed by her evidence does not rule out allegation. It appears that she is a village woman, who had little experience of the mundane affairs and necessarily devoid of knowledge about the modern intricacies and complexities. Her mere failure to inform the police about the ill-treatment does not annihiliate her claim. On the contrary, it shows the genuineness of her claim as it is the craving of every woman to live in the marital home and to pass a peaceful life. Only under the compelling circumstances, the spouse leaves the marital home. The denial of marriage is it self a cruelty as Subal had attempted to wriggle out of his obligation to maintain her. Only under the compelling circumstances, the spouse leaves the marital home. The denial of marriage is it self a cruelty as Subal had attempted to wriggle out of his obligation to maintain her. Why Malati will pick up Subal amongst all the villagers claiming herself to be his wife, who enjoyed marital home for one and half year. The evidence of his other witnesses does not prove to be falsehood. They sang a song of full throated ease proving marriage and neglect, which do not suffer from any discordance. The Court cannot absorb the shock of neglect and, therefore, awarding of maintenance to her for the reasons indicated above is justified. ( 17 ) IN my view, the order does not call for any interference. It is aninglorious attempt of Subal to deny a valid marriage when the Court cannot take the role of a silent spectator. Thus, in consideration of the above, I reject the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and uphold the contention of the wife respondent. The impugned order is accordingly upheld. In the result, the revision fails.