Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1317 of 1994 Revisionist :- Smt. Munni Devi Opposite Party :- Pramod Kumar And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- D. Narain Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.,Sharad Kumar Srivastava,Tarun Bhattacharya
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
This revisions has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.8.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur allowing criminal revision no. 210 of 1992 arising out order dated 22.6.1992 passed by IIIrd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Fatehpur in case No.627 of 1991 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by which the opposite party no. 1 had been directed to pray Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance to the revisionists.
None present for the revisionist. As the revision is very old and therefore, this revision is decided on merits.
Heard Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party and learned A.G.A. for the state.
The main ground for challenging the order of the revisional court is that learned Sessions Judge while setting aside the order passed by the trial court has not properly exercised its jurisdiction and has not properly analysed the evidence available on record. Learned Sessions Judge has not recorded any finding with respect that the revisionist is unable to herself or not. Learned Sessions Judge has not recorded any finding that revisionist is entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. and without recording such finding the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the findings recorded by the trial court.
Learned counsel for the opposite party has vehemently opposed the grounds made by the learned counsel for the revisionist and has submitted that after properly appraisal the evidences, facts and material available on record learned Sessions Judge has rejected the order of learned C.J.M., Fatehpur on the legal aspect that without any proper reason revisionist has refused to live with the opposite party and thus there is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Sessions Judge.
The impugned order is based on the proper appraisal of the evidence available on record and no interference is required by this Court. Thus, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and, therefore, the revision is devoid of merits.
The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. The interim order, if any, stands vacated.
The copy of this order be transmitted to the court below for for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 A. Pt. Singh