JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. This petition has been filed against order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Criminal Revision Petition No. 10-B/X-2006 vide which, the learned Revisional Court has set aside order dated 25.02.2006 passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baijnath, District Kangra in Petition No. 99-IV/2004 and directed the present petitioner to pay to the respondent/applicant maintenance @ Rs. 800/- per month w.e.f. 15.07.2004. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of presence case are that wife of present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the applicant’) filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. before the learned trial Court claiming maintenance from the respondent therein. The case put forth by the applicant was that she was wife of respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 06.07.1998 at Village Ghartholi according to Hindu rites and customs. As per the applicant, the present petitioner and his family members started maltreating her immediately after the marriage on the ground of bringing insufficient dowry. They used to ask for precious items like refrigerator. After six months of marriage, she was forced to leave the matrimonial house and since then she is living with her parents. Her parents tried to solve the matter amicably, but the petitioner refused to keep the applicant and also threatened to marry another woman. As per the applicant, the petitioner is living with another woman, named Lalita Devi, D/o Madho Ram since 27.02.2004 after marrying her and he was neglecting to maintain the applicant without any reasonable cause. He was also not paying any maintenance to her. As per the applicant, the petitioner was working as a Mason and was earning an amount of Rs. 6000/- per month. According to the applicant, she was neglected and refused to be maintained by the petitioner. Therefore, she was entitled for the grant of maintenance allowance. 3. The husband in the reply so filed by him denied the factum of applicant being his wife. As per him, he was married to Lalita Devi as per Hindu rites and customs on 25.11.1997. The applicant was not his legally wedded wife and therefore, according to him, there was no question of paying any maintenance to her. 4. 3. The husband in the reply so filed by him denied the factum of applicant being his wife. As per him, he was married to Lalita Devi as per Hindu rites and customs on 25.11.1997. The applicant was not his legally wedded wife and therefore, according to him, there was no question of paying any maintenance to her. 4. On the basis of evidence placed on record by the parties, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the relationship of husband and wife as required under Section 125 Cr. P.C. was not proved between the parties, as such, the question of willful neglect or refusal did not arise and in view of the findings so arrived at by the learned trial Court, the petition filed for maintenance of the applicant was dismissed. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant filed Revision Petition in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra, which was decided on 20.10.2008. The Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra while allowing the Revision Petition so filed by the applicant, set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court. The learned Revisional Court held that on the basis of available evidence on record, applicant had been able to prove and establish her marriage with petitioner on 06.07.1998. It further held that applicant stood married to the present petitioner in 1998 and after marriage, the applicant started residing with her husband, i.e. present petitioner. However, the present petitioner started treating the applicant with cruelty and started demanding costly items of dowry from the parents of applicant and in such circumstances, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house. Efforts were made to patch up difference between the parties, but were unsuccessful. Learned first Revisional Court also held that the applicant was married with the present petitioner in accordance with customary rites and rituals in 1998 and this fact stood proved by AW-1, Sikander Kumar, who had performed the ceremonies of marriage. The First Revisional Court further concluded that the present petitioner had not produced any documentary evidence in support of his alleged marriage on 25.11.1997 with RW-5 (Smt. Lalita Devi). 6. On the basis of this, it concluded that the applicant was entitled for maintenance @ 800/- per month to be paid by the present petitioner from the date of institution of petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. 6. On the basis of this, it concluded that the applicant was entitled for maintenance @ 800/- per month to be paid by the present petitioner from the date of institution of petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present petitioner has filed this petition praying for setting aside order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case. 9. In fact, learned trial Court had dismissed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by holding that no evidence has come on file that the applicant resided with the present petitioner as his wife and no documentary evidence has come on record to substantiate that the applicant was the wife of present petitioner. On these basis, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the applicant was not entitled for maintenance from the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as she had miserably failed to prove that she was wife of the petitioner and especially in the presence of Lalita Devi, she could not be termed to be the wife of present petitioner. 10. The findings so returned by the learned trial Court had been set aside by the learned first Revisional Court. The first Revisional Court has held that on the basis of material produced on record by the applicant, it stood proved that marriage had been solemnized between the applicant and the present petitioner. It has been held by the first Revisional Court that the contention of the applicant that she was married to the present petitioner and as his legally wedded wife she lived with him for about six months was substantiated by her in the Court as a witness and her deposition was duly supported and corroborated by four other witnesses, who in unison proved that applicant Rita Devi was in fact married to Ajay Kumar on 06.07.1998 as per Hindu rites and customs. On the other hand, the factum of the marriage of applicant with petitioner Ajay Kumar was not satisfactorily dispelled by the petitioner. Not only this, the petitioner in fact admitted that he was engaged with Rita Devi, but as Rita Devi was mentally unsound, therefore, marriage was not solemnized. On the other hand, the factum of the marriage of applicant with petitioner Ajay Kumar was not satisfactorily dispelled by the petitioner. Not only this, the petitioner in fact admitted that he was engaged with Rita Devi, but as Rita Devi was mentally unsound, therefore, marriage was not solemnized. In fact, his case was that he had rejected the proposal of his marriage with Rita Devi on this ground and the case filed by Rita Devi was in revenge. 11. Mark-X and Mark-Y are two photographs on record, which according to the applicant are of the time when she was married to petitioner Ajay. In these photographs, one can see a bride and a bridegroom and two-three girls standing behind bridegroom. Petitioner Ajay Kumar has not denied that he is the person who is a bridegroom in these photographs. However, according to him, the bride in these photographs is not the applicant. Incidentally, it is not even his case that the bride in these photographs is the lady whom he claimed to have married in the year, 1997. Further, it stands proved on record that the girls who are seen in the photographs behind the bridegroom are the sisters of applicant Rita Devi. 12. The first Revisional Court has also held on the basis of material on record that respondent Ajay, i.e. present petitioner was not married to Lalita on 25.11.1997 as alleged and marriage, if any, has taken place only on 27.02.2004. The first Revisional Court has also held that present petitioner has also not produced any documentary evidence in support of his alleged marriage with Lalita on 25.11.1997. The factum of the said marriage is not recorded anywhere nor there is an iota of material produced on record by the present petitioner to suggest that he was married with Lalita on 25.11.1997. 13. Lalita, who has entered into the witness box as RW-5 has stated that she was married to present petitioner in the month following the month of lohari. The learned first Revisional Court has taken note of the fact that this witness has said in her examination-in-chief that she stood married to Ajay on 25.11.1997, whereas subsequently she has stated that she was married to petitioner one month’s after lohari. The learned first Revisional Court has taken note of the fact that this witness has said in her examination-in-chief that she stood married to Ajay on 25.11.1997, whereas subsequently she has stated that she was married to petitioner one month’s after lohari. Lohari is celebrated in the month of January, which further proves the case of applicant that Ajay had married Lalita only in the year, 2004, i.e. on 27.02.2004. 14. In view of what I have discussed above, it cannot be said that the findings which have been arrived at by the first Revisional Court are either perverse or not borne out from the material produced on record by the applicant. 15. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon two judgments. These judgments are: 1. Padminibai alias Panabai Vs. Sambaji Dhondiram Bhosle and another, Divorce and Matrimonial Cases Vol. 1 (1983) 264; and 2. Shibsankar Samanta Vs. Smt. Sobhana Samanta, 1992 Cri. L.J. 2196. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in Padminibai alias Panabai Vs. Sambaji Dhondiram Bhosle and another, Divorce and Matrimonial Cases Vol. 1 (1983) 264 has argued that it was not open for the revisional Court to re-appreciate the evidence afresh, as has been done by the learned first Revisional Court in the present case. 17. I am afraid that the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner only merits rejection. It is settled law that though revisional Court ordinarily does not re-examine and re-appreciate the evidence, however, in exceptional cases where there is failure to appreciate the evidence on record or where there is misapplication of law or the finding is so perverse that it cannot be sustained on the record, it is always open for the Revisional Court to re-examine and re-appreciate the evidence. It is apparent from the perusal of the orders passed by the learned trial Court as well as learned first appellate Court that the findings returned by the learned trial Court on the issue were perverse and was a result of failure to consider the evidence on record. Therefore, in these circumstances, the learned first Revisional Court has rightly re-examined and re-appreciated the evidence in order to meet the ends of justice. 18. As far as the judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court in Shibsankar Samanta Vs. Therefore, in these circumstances, the learned first Revisional Court has rightly re-examined and re-appreciated the evidence in order to meet the ends of justice. 18. As far as the judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court in Shibsankar Samanta Vs. Smt. Sobhana Samanta, 1992 Cri. L.J. 2196 is concerned, in my considered view, it does not further the case of the petitioner because the said judgment has no bearing on the facts of the present case. The findings returned by the Calcutta High Court are on the basis of factual controversy involved in that case. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and another (1999) 7 SCC 675 has held as under:- “….The standard of proof of marriage in such proceedings is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under Section 494 IPC. If the claimant in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code succeeds in showing that she and the respondent have lived together as husband and wife, the court can presume that they are legally wedded spouses, and in such a situation, the party who denies the marital status can rebut the presumption.” 20. On the touch stone of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it can be safely said that the applicant had placed sufficient material on record on the basis of which it could be determined that she was legally wedded wife of present petitioner and she and petitioner had lived together as husband and wife for six months after marriage. On the other hand, the present petitioner who in fact denied the marital status, could not rebut the presumption on the basis of evidence produced on record by him. In this view of the matter, in my considered view, there is neither any perversity nor any infirmity with the order passed by the learned first Revisional Court. 21. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed.