Sunita Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Srivastava, J.—The revisionist had filed a petition u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure against opposite party No. 2 which was heard and disposed of by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 12, Jaunpur on 6.2.2006. The relevant case number is 1076 of 2004. Opposite party No. 2 feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order had filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, which was transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Jaunpur and was disposed of by the said Court on 8.3.2007. The relevant Criminal Revision number is 186 of 2006. The learned lower revisional Court had set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate and remanded back for fresh consideration.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

From the perusal of the judgment of the learned lower revisional court it is evident that in the last 10 lines, just above the operative portion of the judgment, the learned lower revisional Court has held that the revisionist has failed to establish that opposite party No. 2 had neglected her and failed to maintain her. It has been further held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the revisionist was living separately from her husband without any sufficient reason and opposite party No. 2 has not refused to maintain the revisionist. On this basis the learned lower revisional court had remanded back the matter for fresh consideration to the learned Magistrate.

It can not be understood that if this was the position of facts on record ,the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have allowed the revision out rightly and dismissed the petition u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure moved by the revisionist before the learned Magistrate, but it has not been done.

I have gone through the judgment passed by the learned lower revisional Court with caution and I do not find that there is any discussion or detailed mentioning of facts which has compelled the learned revisional Court to arrive at a decision that the revisionist had failed to prove before the learned Magistrate that she was being neglected by her husband without any rhyme or reason. To that extent the finding recorded by the learned lower revisional Court is perverse.

I also find that in most part of the judgment the learned lower revisional Court has mentioned the facts of the case and the statements of the witnesses, but unfortunately he had not discussed the statements of the witnesses on merits and without having made any discussion he had arrived at a decision which can not be accepted because those findings are not based on reasonings, on the basis of the above discussions, I am of the view that the revision should be allowed but the matter should be remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge concerned for hearing the revision afresh and pass a judgment afresh in the case after giving both the parties sufficient opportunity of hearing.

Accordingly the revision is allowed. The judgment and order impugned herein passed by the learned lower revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 186 of 2006, Surendra State of UP and Ors. on 8.3.2007 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Sessions Judge who will dispose of the revision either by himself or transfer the same to any other competent Court for its fresh hearing and passing of order in accordance with law.