Sheela Devi vs Munna Lal and Another

Krishna Kumar, J.—This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1.3.1984, passed by v. Ith Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, whereby he allowed the revision, set aside the order of learned Magistrate dated 19.7.1983.

Smt. Sheela Devi, the revisionist had filed petition u/s 125, Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and for her three children. The petition was allowed. Being aggrieved against the said order, a revision was filed by the contesting Respondent Munna Lal. In revision the order was modified to the extent that maintenance was refused to the revisionist and one child, who had since been married, while the other two children allowed maintenance as per order of the learned Magistrate.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that revisional court has no authority to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the learned lower court and further on the basis of same evidence the revisional court cannot substitute its own findings. My attention was drawn towards some portions of the judgment of the revisional court whereby the revisional court drew its own opinion on the basis of evidence recorded by the learned Magistrate. Thus, the learned revisional court has substituted its own findings without holding that the findings given by the learned Magistrate were perverse or were based on mis-reading or non-reading of any documentary or oral evidence. Only because there were some discrepancies in the testimony, the learned revisional court cannot substitute its own findings.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist tried to argue that as some loan was taken by the revisionist for performing the marriage of her daughter, she is entitled for maintenance of that daughter also. However, this contention is misconceived inasmuch as only a child, who was solely dependent, is entitled to get the maintenance from her father.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that revisionist was only daughter of her father and therefore, she was residing separately from her husband without any sufficient cause. I am, however, not convinced with this contention and further there is a finding of fact given by the learned Magistrate and it cannot be disturbed.

Contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents that there is no reason for the Respondent Munna Lal to neglect his wife after 25 years of marriage, has no force because she was forced to file the petition for maintenance under the circumstances arising after 25 years of marriage.

It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that other two daughters of the revisionist have also been married. However, if it is so, the learned lower court shall pass appropriate order, but no order can be passed in respect of maintenance regarding the other two daughters in this revision.

It is clear that the learned revisional court committed illegality in substituting its own finding and opinion while refusing maintenance to wife.

In view of what has been indicated hereinabove, the judgment and order dated 1.3.1984, passed by the learned revisional court is set aside. The order dated 19.7.1983, passed by the learned Magistrate is confirmed. This revision is allowed.