Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—Revisionists Smt. Kamini wife of opposite party No. 2 and her two children have preferred this criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad, in Case Crime No. 35/11/2004 whereby their application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

2. Revisionists filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance against her husband, Brijesh Kumar, opposite party No. 2 on the ground of their desertion by opposite party No. 2 without any rhyme or reason; that the claimants are unable to maintain themselves while husband is earning more than Rs. 8,000/- per month.

3. Revisionist, Smt. Kamini claims that she was turned out of her matrimonial home alongwith her two children because her parents could not fulfill the dowry demands of her husband and that; she had been subjected to cruelty on non fulfillment of this dowry demand.

4. O.P. No. 2 has refuted these allegations while admitting the factum of marriage solemnised on 22.11.1986. He has alleged that after few years of marriage revisionist developed unhealthy physical intimacy with one Sameer @ Sunil. Once he found revisionist in compromising position with Samir @ Sunil and this adulterous relation between revisionist and Sameer @ Sunil created a matrimonial discord between husband and wife.

5. O.P. No. 2 has further stated that he tried to dissuade the revisionist from this relationship but the revisionist did not pay any heed and ultimately on 19.3.1997 the revisionist finally eloped with Sameer @ Sunil and carried her personal jewelery. First Information Report was lodged by husband at Police Station, Kanpur, a copy of which is filed with written statement. He alleges that revisionist-wife continued to live in adultery with Sameer @ Sunil till his death. She has moved application for maintenance only after the death of her paramour, although even today she is not ready to live with her husband.

6. The evidence of both parties was recorded by the trial Court. The trial Court agreed with the contentions of husband that it was revisionist-wife who had left the matrimonial home of her own volition and that; she continued to live in adultery with Sameer @ Sunil till the death of her paramour and, therefore, the trial Court rejected the application of revisionist. Aggrieved revisionist has preferred the present revision.

7. Heard Sri Sanjay Srivastava brief holder of Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for revisionist, Sri O.P. Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. on behalf of State.

8. Ordinarily in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, it is beyond the power and jurisdiction of Court to re-assess the evidence. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Kerala v. Putthumana ILLath Jathavedan Namboodiri,” AIR 1999 SC 981, has held that the Court while hearing revisions does not work as an Appellate Court and should not re-appreciate the evidence unless some glaring feature is pointed out which may show that injustice has been done.

9. As a broad proposition, the interference may be justified where the judgment is grossly erroneous; where there is no compliance with the provisions of law; where the finding of fact affecting the judgment is not based on the evidence; where the material evidence of the parties have not been considered; and where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. Failure to exercise the jurisdiction may also be a ground for interference by the revisional Court.

10. It is therefore, clear that revisional Court does not have unlimited jurisdiction to reassess the entire evidence available on record. Considering the narrow compass available to this Court, it is clear that judgment of trial Court cannot be upset for two reasons. First there is sufficient material on record to show that the revisionist left her matrimonial home of her own volition. Admittedly, the marriage was solemnised on 22nd November, 198