"9. In fact, we also fi nd sufficient substance in the plea that the High Court in its revisiona[ jurisdiction ought not to l'rave entered into a scrutin_v of the finciing recorded by the Magistratc that tl-re appellant \vas a married wife of the respondent, befor-e allowing an application determining maintcnance as it is well-settied that the revisional court can interfere only if there is any illegality in thc order or there is an1, material irregula rity in the procedure or there is an error of .jurisdiction.The HighCourt under its revisional jurisdiction is not rcquired to enter into reappreciation o[ evidence recorded in the order granting maintenancc; at Ll-re rnost it could correct a pat.ent error ofjurisd rction. It has bcen laid down in a series of decisions inclu<iing Suresh Mondal vs. State of Jharkhand (2006 (11 AIR Jhar. R. 153) that in a case rvhere the learned Magistrate has glanted rnaintenancc holding that the wife had been negiected and the wife was entitled to maintenance, the scope of interference by the revisional court is very limited. The revisional court would not substitutc its orvn finding and upset the maintenance order recorded by the Magistrate. iO. in revision' against the maintenance order passed in proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C., the revisional court has no power to re-assess evidence and substitute iLs own findings. Under revisional jurisdiction, thc questions whether the applicant is a married u,ife, the children are
