( 1 ) THIS is the wife's revision against the dismissal of her claim under S. 125 of the Criminal P. C. 1973, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar, for her own maintenance and for the maintenance of her two minor children.

( 2 ) THE factum of lawful marriage between the parties according to the Hindu Rites and customs about 15 years back from now, is admitted; and so also, the fact that the two minor children Salindhar (aged now 9 years) and Gohindu (aged now 7 years), who were born out of their lawful wedlock, are living at present, with the applicant Mst. Radhamani at the latter's father's place (Para 1 of the petition ). The respondent husband is employed in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board as a helper on the monthly salary of Rs. 600/ -.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the wife's petition, the respondent-husband, about two years before the presentation of the petition, had turned out his wife and his two minor children from his parental house and had left them to their own lot, and since then the applicant-wife along with the children is living at her parental house. The respondent-husband was alleged to have brought one woman Mst. Bodebai and to have kept her with him as his wife or concubine. It was alleged that the wife had no source of income for her own maintenance and that of her children; and the respondent-husband was responsible for their maintenance. Considering the income of the husband, total monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 250/- was claimed for her maintenance and for her two children.

( 4 ) THE respondent-husband, refuting the allegations of the petitioner, contended that Mst. Bodebai had been kept by his parents, only as a house-maid and not as his wife or concubine. The wife was stated to have left her husband's home along with her children of her own accord, after quarreling with the respondent's mother. She was never turned out from the house of the respondent; and the respondent was always prepared to take her back and the children, but there was refusal on the wife's part in this regard, despite attempts to bring her back. The wife was also stated to have illegal connections with her sister's husband Lekhan.

( 5 ) THE trial Court believing the evidence on the wife's side, had allowed the petition by awarding total monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 200/- for the wife and her two children. The lower Revisional Court, after re-evaluating the evidence over again, has set aside the trial Court's order for grant of maintenance and has dismissed the wife's claim for maintenance. It has been held by the lower Revisional Court that the wife had failed to establish that she had been deserted and neglected by her husband or that, the husband had taken any other woman as his wife. 5a. Now, in the present revision, the learned counsel for the applicant-wife has urged that there is clear proof on record regarding the husband's neglect and also regarding taking a woman as a second wife or concubine, as such, it is prayed that grant of maintenance, as allowed by the trial Court, deserves to be restored, after setting aside the lower revisional Court's order. The respondent's learned counsel has, however, adopted the same reasonings as the lower revisional Court has, for disallowing the claim, as laid.

( 6 ) I have considered the evidence on record of the trial Court in the light of judgments of the two Courts below who have respectively appreciated the evidence in their own manner, contrary to each other, with the result, that on the same evidence, the trial Court allowed the maintenance, and the lower revisional Court rejected it. As a matter of fact, the trial Court's appreciation of evidence should not, normally be interfered with, by the Revisional Court unless there is perversity in appreciation or there is injudicious approach to the appreciation of facts, as deposed to by the witnesses. It is unfortunate that in the present case, the lower revisional Court has appreciated the evidence, adduced in the tri