Honble LAL, J.–This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.c. is directed against the order dated 22.2.2005 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur in criminal Revision No. 60/2003 whereby the revision petition has been allowed and the order dated 15.2.1997 passed by he learned A.C.J.M. No.1, Bharatpur dismissing the application filed by non-petitioner Mst. Sharda u/Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. has been set-aside and Mst. Sharda has been awarded Rs. 1000/- per month and her child Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance from the date of filing of said application. (2). Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that Mst. Sharda filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned A.C.J.M. No.1, Bharatpur on 2.7.1994 with the averments that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner some 15 years ago as per the Hindu rites. her elder sister was also married to Samanta, the elder brother of the petitioner. Her Gona ceremony took place after about 9 years of her marriage. She gave birth to a male child Nem Singh who is aged about 7 years. The petitioner, it is alleged, is a drunkard and a loose charactered person having illicit relations with other ladies. He eloped with one Geeta about one and half months ago. He along with other members of his family ousted her from the house after beating her. The Village Panchayat tried to persuade the petitioner to keep her with him but he refused to do so claiming that he was not married to her. He has filed a petition for annulment of the alleged marriage wherein he has also denied paternity of the child born to her. (3). The petitioner contested the application and in his reply, he has alleged that Mst. Sharda, was married in Village Sikri. Her husband expired. Thereafter, she had been residing with her sister Smt. Lachcho and her husband Samanta who in order to grab his share in the property instigated her to file such an application against him. he has, therefore, prayed that the application may be dismissed. (4). The wife examined herself and six witnesses in support of her application, while husband examined himself and nine witnesses and got exhibited documents Exh. NA-1 to Exh. NA-4 in rebuttal. (5). he has, therefore, prayed that the application may be dismissed. (4). The wife examined herself and six witnesses in support of her application, while husband examined himself and nine witnesses and got exhibited documents Exh. NA-1 to Exh. NA-4 in rebuttal. (5). After hearing both the parties in detail the trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated 15.2.1997 holding that the wife Mst. Sharda had failed to prove her marriage with the petitioner. The revision petition filed by Mst. Sharda was however allowed. The order of the trial Court was set-aside. Mst. Sharda was awarded maintenance as indicated above. Hence, this revision. (6). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. (7). mst. Sharda AW-1 is the applicant herself, Sheoji AW-2 is her father, lachcho AW-3 is her sister and Samanta AW-4 is her brother-in-law. Being closely related they are all interested witnesses. So, their evidence will have to be scrutinized minutely and carefully in the light of the checks and balances available on record. (8). Mst. Sharda AW-1 has stated that she was married to Ramesh about 15-16 years ago. Her Gona ceremony was performed after 8 years of her marriage. She has a son from Ramesh. He turned her out of the house about 2 years ago. Since then she has been residing with her brothers Jal Singh and Omprakash. Her father resides in Chhatarpur. She and her sister Lachcho were married on the same day. At the time of her marriage, she was 8-9 years of age. At the time of her Gona 50-60 Kumhars of Kaithwada had come. She has categorically admitted that she did not make any report about the alleged illicit relations of Ramesh with Geeta. She did not tell about this even to her brother-in0law or to her parents. She did not lodge any report about beating/maltreatment meted out to her by Ramesh. She was not there in the Panchayat which was held after she was turned out of the house by Ramesh. (9). Her father Sheoji AW-2 has stated that Mst. Sharda was married to Ramesh 15-20 years ago. her Gona ceremony took place after 7 years of her marriage. She has a son from Ramesh. mst. Sharda has been residing in her parental house in Chhatarpur for the last two years. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Gona ceremony of both his daughters namely; Mst. Sharda was married to Ramesh 15-20 years ago. her Gona ceremony took place after 7 years of her marriage. She has a son from Ramesh. mst. Sharda has been residing in her parental house in Chhatarpur for the last two years. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Gona ceremony of both his daughters namely; Mst. Sharda and Lachcho took place separately. At the time of Gona, 15-16 persons including Narain and Manohar had come. (10). It is apparent from a conjoint reading of both these statements that as per Mst. Sharda AW-1, Lachcho AW-3 went to her matrimonial house on the day of her marriage whereas Sheoji AW-2 has stated that Gona ceremony of Lachcho took place afterwards. As per Mst. Sharda AW-1 she has been residing with her brothers whereas as per Sheoji AW-2, Mst. Sharda has been residing with him. Strangely enough, none of the two brothers of Mst. Sharda AW-1 has been examined in this case. No person from amongst those who attended Gona has been examined. Mst. Sharda AW-1 has claimed Rs. 2000/- as maintenance for both herself and her son while her father Sheoji AW-2 has claimed Rs. 2000/- as maintenance for th3 child and Rs. 5000-7000 for her daughter Mst. Sharda. (11). Lachcho AW-3 has stated that Mst. Sharda AW-1 has been residing with her brother Jal Singh along with her son Nem Singh. She has also stated that she and her sister Mst. Sharda were married on the same day. Gona ceremony of Mst. Sharda took place 9 years after her marriage. (12). Samanta AW-4 has also stated that marriage of Mst. Sharda took place with Ramesh about 16-17 years ago on the day on which he was married to Lachcho. He has admitted that he has a son namely Dharam Singh NAW-1 from his first wife Mst. Phoolwati who has since expired. He has denied that Mst. Sharda used to come to their house. (13). Abdul Rehman alias Chotulal AW-5 has stated that Ramesh was married about 15-20 years ago. He has a son from Mst. Sharda. He does not know the name of the wife of Samanta. According to him, the marriage parties of both the brothers had gone separately. Samanta was married 4 years prior to the marriage of Ramesh. (14). Zahur Khan AW-6 has stated that Ramesh was married to Mst. He has a son from Mst. Sharda. He does not know the name of the wife of Samanta. According to him, the marriage parties of both the brothers had gone separately. Samanta was married 4 years prior to the marriage of Ramesh. (14). Zahur Khan AW-6 has stated that Ramesh was married to Mst. Sharda and they have a son who is aged about 6-7 years. There was a Panchayat of the community in which the face of Ramesh was blackened because he had illicit relations with someone. He has stated in his cross-examination that both the brothers were married simultaneously. (15). Abdul Rehman alias Chhotulal AW-5 and Zahur Khan AW-6 have both admitted in their cross-examination that they had not seen the marriage ceremonies of both the brothers. A bare perusal of their statements shows that they are tutored witnesses and their evidence does not inspire any confidence. They even belie the statements of other witnesses of Mst. Sharda AW-1 regarding the simultaneously marriage of two sisters with two brothers. (16). As against the above evidence of Mst. Sharda, the applicant, Dharam Singh NAW-1 who is admittedly the son of Samanta from his first wife has stated that Ramesh was married to Mst. Sharda 8 months ago. He had not seen their marriage earlier to this. he has also admitted that Mst. Sharda used to come to the house of his father Samanta and her son may have been born by his father Samanta. (17). Sher Khan NAW-2 has stated that Ramesh is not married and Mst. Sharda does not reside with Ramesh. She resides with Samanta and the child born to Mst. Sharda is the son of Samanta. He has again stated in the cross-examination that Samanta resides with Mst. Sharda. (18). Sita Ram NAW-3 has also categorically stated that marriage of Ramesh did not take place at the time of marriage of Samanta and the child born to Mst. Sharda is the son of Samanta. Mst. Sharda has been residing with Samanta for the last 8-10 years. He has stated that it is wrong to say that Ramesh was married to Mst. Sharda. (19). Umesh Chand NAW-4 has stated that he has seen Mst. Sharda residing with Samanta. Samanta asked Ramesh to marry mst. Sharda to which he did not agree. He has also stated that Ramesh is residing with his mother and Samanta is residing separately. He has stated that it is wrong to say that Ramesh was married to Mst. Sharda. (19). Umesh Chand NAW-4 has stated that he has seen Mst. Sharda residing with Samanta. Samanta asked Ramesh to marry mst. Sharda to which he did not agree. He has also stated that Ramesh is residing with his mother and Samanta is residing separately. It is wrong to say that Mst. Sharda is the wife of Ramesh. (20). Jummal NAW-5 has stated that Mst. Sharda is residing with Samanta who is his sister-in-law. he is keeping her as his wife. Ramesh has never been married to Mst. Sharda. He has also proved Exh.NA-1 and has stated that Tehsildar had come to the village and made enquiries from the villagers about the marriage of Mst. Sharda with Ramesh whereupon villagers told that Mst. Sharda was not married to Ramesh. (21). Heeralal NAW-6 has stated that he had gone in the marriage party of Samanta and marriage of Ramesh was not solemnized in their presence. He is acquainted with Mst. Sharda who is residing with Samanta. Ramesh has not been married to Mst. Sharda. He has also categorically stated that it is wrong to say that Mst. Sharda is residing with Ramesh. (22). Ramesh Chandra NAW-7 has clearly denied that he was married to Mst. Sharda. Mst. Sharda has been residing with Samanta for 10-12 years. (23). Motilal NAW-8 has also stated that Ramesh has not been married to Mst. Sharda. (24). Manoharlal NAW-9 has also stated that Ramesh was not married at the time of the marriage of Samanta. It is wrong to state that Ramesh was married to Mst. Sharda. (25). It has been held in Samir Mandal vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2001) 10 SCC 50 that if the marriage is not established, the question of grant of maintenance u/Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. does not arise. (26). In Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2005) 3 SCC 636 , it has been held that expression "wife" as per Section 125 Cr.P.C. refers to only legally married wife. The scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be enlarged by introducing any artificial definition to include a woman not lawfully married in the expression "wife". A woman not legally married is not entitled to maintenance. (27). In Pravati Rani Sahoo and anr. The scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be enlarged by introducing any artificial definition to include a woman not lawfully married in the expression "wife". A woman not legally married is not entitled to maintenance. (27). In Pravati Rani Sahoo and anr. vs. Bishnupada Sahoo (2002) 10 SCC 510 it has been held that where Magistrate finds that marriage is not proved and also dismisses claim of paternity, the High Court should entertain revision petition, re-evaluate the evidence and then come to its own decision as to whether Magistrates findings and conclusions are legally sustainable or not while at the same time bearing in mind the differences in approach necessary for a revision and an appeal. (28). In view of the aforesaid legal position and upon a careful consideration of the evidence on record it is apparent that Mst. Sharda, the applicant non-Section herein has failed to establish satisfactorily that she was legally married wife of petitioner Ramesh and Nem Singh was born to her from the petitioner. On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence on record, as indicated above, to show that petitioner Ramesh was not married to Mst. Sharda, the non-petitioner and Nem Singh was not his son. he was born to her from Samanta with whom she had been residing as his wife. The order of the learned trial Court coming to the aforesaid finding and consequently dismissing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. appears to me to be well-considered and well-reasoned which is based on a detailed analysis, examination, discussion and appreciation of the evidence on record and the order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge in revision does not appear to be sustainable. It has not given any valid and cogent reasons for upsetting the finding of fact in exercise of the limited revisional jurisdiction. The evidence produced by and on behalf of petitioner Ramesh appears to be much more convincing and consistent than the evidence led by Mst. Sharda, the applicant non-petitioner here. Therefore, the order of the learned revisional court cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.2.2005 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur is hereby set aside and the order dated 15.2.1997 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bharatpur dismissing the application u/Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. is restored.