Judgment :- This revision by Mr. Sivakumar, husband, before this Court, is directed against the order dated 6-9-96, passed in MC. No. 157/95, on the file of Family court, Coimbatore awarding maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month from the date of application i.e. on 13-4-1994. 2. The respondent Manimegalai, wife of the petitioner filed a petition under S. 125, Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance in M.C. No. 7/94 on 13-4-1994, before the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Coimbatore, on 27-9-94, the petitioner/husband filed a counter. Thereafter on 15-3-1995, the case was transferred to the Family Court, Coimbatore, and the same was taken on file in M.C. No. 157/95, by the Family Judge, Coimbatore. 3. In the enquiry conducted by the lower Court, on the side of wife, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. P1 to P7 were marked. On the side of husband, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. R1 to R6 were marked. 4. Admittedly, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 12-1-1986 at Mettupalayam. The petitioner was working as a Conductor in Jeeva Transport Corporation. Both the petitioner and the respondent were living happily at Sunjai Puliayampatti, for a period of seven years. During this period, two children were born. The first son Rajkumar was born on 8-6-87. The second female child was born on 30-4-89. But subsequently the female child died . Thereafter, there was misunderstanding between the petitioner and respondent, due to the illicit intimacy developed between the petitioner/husband and John Victor Mery. 5. The Petitioner, in the course of time, compelled the respondent to give consent for the second marriage. However, she refused. Therefore, she was ill-treated and sent away from the matrimonial home. Some months later, the petitioner contracted a second marriage, with the said Victor Mery. He had also filed a divorce petition in H.M.O.P. No. 323/93, before the second additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, seeking divorce. In these circumstances, the respondent/wife filed the petition under S. 125, Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance. 6. The said proceedings were seriously contested by the husband/petitioner, denying the alleged second marriage one stating that the respondent/wife herself left the matrimonial home without any justifiable cause, and she was employed in the Noon-meal scheme, and she was earning for her livelihood, and that the parents of the respondent had also owned house and landed properties, and as such, she was not entitled to any maintenance. 7. On consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary, the learned Family Judge, concluded that the respondent/wife is entitled to maintenance, rejecting the plea of the petitioner herein, and awarded maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month, as indicated earlier. This order is challenged in this revision. 8. The main contention urged before this Court is that the respondent/wife was not able to establish that she was unable to maintain herself, as it has been proved that she was working in the Noon-meal centre, and that there is also no proof to show that she was residing in the jurisdiction of the lower Court, to maintain the application under S. 125, Cr.P.C., before the Family Court, Coimbatore. 9. P.W. 3, a Branch Manager of Jeeva Transport Corporation was examined by the wife, to show that the petitioner/husband was drawing about Rs. 2, 600/- per month and Rs. 600/- per month towards petta etc. On perusal of the entire records, it would be seen, that there was no dispute about the marriage and the birth of children, out of the said wedlock. Though they lived together for 7 years, the respondent/wife was driven out, since she did not give consent for the second marriage of the petitioner herein with one John Victor Mery, with whom he had already developed illicit intimacy. It has also been established by the respondent, that the petitioner was living with the said John Victor Mery, along with their children born to them. 10. The trial Court has elaborately considered the evidence of R.W. 3, Village Administrative Officer, who was examined by the husband, in order to establish that the wife was not residing in the local jurisdiction. On considering the various inconsistencies found in his evidence, the trial court correctly concluded that the evidence of R.W. 3 could not be relied upon, and P.W.2 would support P.W. 1, stating the circumstances under which the respondent/wife was driven out from the matrimonial home. 11. No doubt, it is true that the petitioner, to a certain extent had established through R.W.2, that the respondent was working in a Noon-meal centre. However, this may not be taken as a ground for rejecting the claim of maintenance, for the reason, that R.W. 2 herself would say that the said job was not a permanent one, and the respondent/wife could be terminated from the said project work at any time. However, this may not be taken as a ground for rejecting the claim of maintenance, for the reason, that R.W. 2 herself would say that the said job was not a permanent one, and the respondent/wife could be terminated from the said project work at any time. Therefore, it could not be said, that she would be able to maintain herself with the said sum, which she gets from the Noon-meal center. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, it could be very well considered, for fixing the quantum of maintenance, and it would not make the claim of maintenance by the respondent/wife invalid. 12. The Apex Court In Fathumma v. Muhammed observed that the High Court, in revision, is not justified in making re-assessment of the evidence, and coming to a different finding by substituting its own view for that of the learned Magistrate, on a question of fact. 13. In view of the above reasonings, and as the scope of revision is very limited, as referred to in the above decision, I am of the view, that the order of Court below, awarding maintenance is quite correct and unassailable. 14. In the result, the revision is dismissed as devoid of merits. Consequently, Crl.M.P. is also dismissed.