( 1 ) MAIN question in focus in this petition is whether the petitioner-original applicant is entitled to claim maintenance from opponent No. 1, as a wife under Sec. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (code for short), as the claim of maintenance is rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Surat, in Criminal Maintenance Application No. 12 of 1983, on 19-8-1987, holding that the petitioner-wife has failed to establish factum of marriage with respondent No. 1-husband.

( 2 ) HAVING examined the facts and circumstances and the evidence, on record, in light of the relevant propositions of law, impugned order of the trial Magistrate is found, with due respect, to be perverse, unjust and patently illegal. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Magistrate for the reasons which this Court hastened to articulate appreciating well and keeping in mind the limited jurisdictional sweep and scope permissible and available in this revision petition under Secs. 397 and 401 of the code. Ordinarily, impugned order relating to factual aspect should not be disturbed in a revision like one on hand under the provisions of the Code, unless it is shown, successfully, that the impugned order is perverse, unjust and illegal indicating nonapplication of mind to the vital factual aspects of the case. This is a fit case for interference, wherein, the impugned order is found not only unjust and perverse but patently illegal.

( 3 ) THE petitioner wife is the original applicant who filed an application under sec. 125 of the Code for her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500. 00 per month from respondent No. 1 husband-Pankajkumar Sureshchandra Vyas, inter alia, contending that she is a deserted wife and is unable to maintain herself. She is hereafter referred to as the original applicant and respondent No. 1-Dr. Vyas as original opponent for short.

( 4 ) IN support of her claim for maintenance, she contended that she got married with the original opponent, on 17-11-1977, and since then, both of them were living together at the house of the original opponent-husband, at village Khatodra, as husband and wife. The original opponent-husband is alleged to have given illtreatment and cruelty to the original applicant-wife, as the original opponenthusband was indulging in illicit relations with some woman. She was left and deserted by the original opponent-husband in helpless conditions at village Khatodra without making any arrangement for her maintenance on or around March, 1981. She also alleged that she refused to oblige original opponent-husband for giving consent to dissolve the marriage by an agreement of dissolution. It is further alleged that the original opponent-husband desired divorce as he wanted to marry with other woman.

( 5 ) THE wife also pleaded that she is having no independent source of income of her own and she is unable to maintain herself. Whereas, the original opponenthusband is doing medical practice and running a dispensary and earning well out of good medical practice. According to the version of the applicant wife, her husband was earning Rs. 3,000. 00 to Rs. 4,000. 00 per month at the time of filing this petition for maintenance. Therefore, she claimed an amount of Rs. 500. 00 per month by way of her maintenance under Sec. 125 of the Code from her husband.

( 6 ) THE opponent-husband resisted the claim of maintenance of the applicant on various grounds. He inter alia contended in his written statement at Ex. 11 that the applicant is not legally wedded wife and as there was no valid marriage between them. Thus, the factum of alleged marriage was countenanced. He denied other averments made in the application for maintenance including the allegation that he is earning Rs. 3,000. 00 to Rs. 4,000. 00 per month.

( 7 ) THE applicant-wife Shardaben relied on her evidence, at Ex. 18, and also relied on the evidence of one Savitaben Punabhai, at