- (1.) KRISHNA Kumar, J. This criminal revision has been filed against the judg ment and order dated 1-3-1994 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr whereby he allowed the revision, set aside the order of learned Magistrate dated 39-7-1983.
(2.) SMT, Sheela Devi, the revisionist had filed petition under Section 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 were 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 some evidence the Revisional Court can not substitute its own findings. My atten tion 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 misread ing 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 en titled 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.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respon dents contended that revisionist was only daughter of her father and, therefore, she was residing separately from her husband without any sufficient cause. 1 am, how ever, not convinced with this contention and further there is a fir ding 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.;