C. A. RAHIM, J. This Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16-12-1983 passed by the Spe cial Judge (DAA) Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Revision No. 42 of 1983. By that judgment the learned Judge allowed the revision and dismissed the application filed by the revisionist under Section 125, Cr. P. C. 2. Sri Rajeshji Verma, appearing for the revisionist has challenged certain obser vations of the lower revisional Court and submitted that those observations were un warranted. 3. The revisionist filed an application for maintenance before the Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai (case No. 50/82) stating that she was married to Ram Das, respondent No. 1 about four years ago but later on it was revealed that Ram Das con cealed his first marriage which was still sub sisting at that time. She claimed main tenance at the rate of Rs. 20g/- per month. The learned Magistrate held that Ram Das married the petitioner without disclosing the truth of his first marriage. Since he deserted her after torture and did not look after her and pay maintenance, she is en titled to the maintenance and hence the learned Magistrate allowed Rs. 200/- per month as maintenance allowance from the date of the application. 4. The revisional Court not only held that Smt. Shivwati is married with Ramdas was void according to the Hindu Marriage Act. But also held that Smt. Shivwati had knowledge of the first marriage of Ram Das. The learned Counsel submits that the said observation was made not on material on record but on conjectures. 5. In paragraph 6 of the judgment the learned Judge held that the said marriage is void since Ram Das had the legally wedded wife alive at the time of his marriage. In that paragraph he has also held that since there was a age gap of about 17-18 years in be tween Smt. Shivwati and Ram Das, the ap plicant (wife) must be in the knowledge of the fact that the opposite party (husband) had a living wife. According to the learned Counsel the said observation was not based on evidence on the record. 6. The learned Judge has also held that since Smt. Shivwati did not tell as to why Ram Das did the second marriage when he was already having a living wife, so the second marriage of Ramdas with Shivwati was not reliable. According to the learned Counsel the said observation was not based on evidence on the record. 6. The learned Judge has also held that since Smt. Shivwati did not tell as to why Ram Das did the second marriage when he was already having a living wife, so the second marriage of Ramdas with Shivwati was not reliable. According to the said learned Counsel the said remark is not borne on the materials available on the record. 7. Sri U. K. Saxena while appearing for the opposite party has only stated that the judgment of the lower revisional Court was proper since the revisionist is not entitled to receive any maintenance as admittedly the marriage was a void marriage. 8. After going through the judgment and also materials on the record I find that those two observations are not only unwar ranted but also not based on evidence. Both the observations are liable to be expunged. He has no reason to observe that the ap plicant (Smt. Shivwati) must have knowledge of the second marriage of the opposite party and that he has a living wife. He has also no occasion to observe that the second marriage of Ram Das with Smt. Shivwati is not reliable. 9. From the evidence it appears that the marriage of Smt. Shivwati with Ram Das was proved by as many as four witnesses and the trial Magistrate after discussing the same arrived on the finding that there was a marriage in between Smt. Shivwati and Ramdas. The said finding is a question of fact. The contradictory finding by the lower revisional Court is out of jurisdiction. In the case of Pathumma and another v. Mohammed, 1986 (23) ACC 286 (SC), it has been held that: "the High Court committed an error in making re-assessment of evidence. The High Court in its revisions! jurisdiction was not justified in substituting its own view to that of the learned Magistrate on question of fact. " 10. The same principle would be ap plicable in the instant case. The lower revisional Court has not only committed an error ia substituting its own finding after re-assessing the evidence but also made cer tain remarks which were not proved by any evidence on the record. 11. " 10. The same principle would be ap plicable in the instant case. The lower revisional Court has not only committed an error ia substituting its own finding after re-assessing the evidence but also made cer tain remarks which were not proved by any evidence on the record. 11. Though there is nothing to inter fere with the ultimate finding of the lower revisional Court, the unwarranted remarks made by him in the impugned judgment be expunged. 12. Since the lower revisional Court is right in holding that the marriage in be tween the parties being void, Smt. Shivwati is not entitled to any maintenance and since I do not find any infirmity with that part of the finding, accordingly the revision is dis missed but both the remarks made by the learned Judge is hereby expunged. Revision dismissed. .