N. Chaudhury, J -- 1. Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the Opposite Party. 2. By this application filed under section 401 read with section 397 Cr.PC the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of order dated 22.06.2012 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge Hailakandi in Criminal Appeal No. 08/2012 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and order dated 03.02.2012 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Hailakandi in M.R.D.V. case No. 44/2010 directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 900/- and Rs. 500/- for house rent to the opposite party along with the cost of Rs. 4000/-. 3. The opposite party instituted the proceeding under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the D. V. Act) stating that she was married to the present petitioner on 08.12.2008 on a dowry of Rs. 50,101/-. But after 15/16 days of marriage the petitioner started demanding dowry from her and also tortured her physically as well as mentally .Consequently the opposite party fell sick and even at that condition also the present petitioner severely assaulted her on 06.03.2009 and threw her out of the matrimonial house. Compelled, she took shelter in her parental house and since then she had been living with her parents. The present petitioner did not take care of her and also did not provide for any maintenance for her. Under such circumstances she was living an undignified life with undeserved wants. 4. On receipt of summons, the present petitioner appeared, hi his written statement he took plea that his wife had voluntarily withdrawn her from his company and refused to return. By orders dated 29.05.2010 and 22.02.2010 the petitioner husband was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 6000/-and he paid the same till the proceeding was concluded. Opposite party adduced 2 witnesses including herself and the present petitioner (husband) examined 4 witnesses and adduced documentary evidence. 5. On perusal of the materials on record and after hearing both the parties the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was satisfied that the wife was compelled to leave the company of the husband on the face of physical and mental torture and that she did not have any income of her own. 5. On perusal of the materials on record and after hearing both the parties the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was satisfied that the wife was compelled to leave the company of the husband on the face of physical and mental torture and that she did not have any income of her own. On consideration of the totality of the circumstances, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed his judgment and order on 03.02.2012 directing the present petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 900/-and Rs. 500 /-for house rent per month. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also passed an order for cost of proceeding, to the tune of Rs. 4000/-. 6. As against the aforesaid judgment of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate the petitioner (husband) approached the Learned Sessions Judge vide Criminal Appeal No. 08/2012. The Learned Appellate court on due perusal of materials on record did not find any reason whatsoever to take a different opinion from what was arrived at by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The order for payment of maintenance including the house rent, therefore, was upheld. However, the Learned Sessions Judge reduced the cost of litigation to Rs 3000/- from Rs. 4000/-, This judgment was passed on 22.06.2012 and the same has been challenged in the present revision petition. 7. The scope of revisional power of High Court against concurrent findings of facts is circumscribed and limited. While an appellate court can re-appreciate the evidence on record so as to arrive at a different view, the revisional court cannot proceed to that extent. Except from examining the legality, propriety and correctness of the decision on a broad view, the revisional court cannot assume the power of an appellate court. If the findings of the learned courts below are perverse and/or are in gross violation of an established principle of law and/or unless a gross and inherent defect in exercise of jurisdiction by the learned courts below are made out, a revisional court cannot step in. 8. In this revision petition both the courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner married the opposite party, that he tortured her mentally and physically, that the opposite party was compelled to leave her matrimonial house and to live with her parents and that she does not have any income of her own. 8. In this revision petition both the courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner married the opposite party, that he tortured her mentally and physically, that the opposite party was compelled to leave her matrimonial house and to live with her parents and that she does not have any income of her own. These findings of the learned Courts below are based on materials on records and there is no scope to hold them perverse. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out as to how these findings are unsustainable. Learned Courts below discussed evidence on records to arrive at the aforesaid findings of facts. No argument has been put forward to enable this court to take a different view than the ones taken by the learned Courts below. No attempt has been made to show that the findings of the learned courts below or the manner of arriving at those findings are improper, irregular or otherwise incorrect. Consequently, there is no scope for interfering with the impugned judgments and orders by invoking power of revision. 9. This revision therefore, is devoid of any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. 10. No order as to cost.