- (1.) THIS criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists Smt. Neetu Rastogi and Muskan, challenging the order dated 13.4.2007 by which application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was partially allowed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad, and by which application for the claim of maintenance by the wife was rejected, and claim for Muskan was allowed; and opposite party no.2 was directed to pay Rs.1000/ - per month from the date of application till the date of her attaining majority, or her marriage.
(2.) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was wrongly rejected for the wife, as there is no denial of fact that revisionist no.1 and opposite party no.2 are husband and wife. Revisionist no.1 was subjected to curelty by opposite party no.2, and in view of this, she is living separately with a justfied reason. It was further submitted that the amount awarded by Principal Judge, Family Court for revisionist no.2 is also on lower side, and in view of growing costs of living and studies, the amount should be increased to Rs.3000/ - per month.
(3.) NO one has appeared from the side of opposite party no.2. I have heard Shri S.M. Munis Jafari, learned counsel for the revisionists and Shri Sharad Dixit, learned AGA for the State respondent and also perused the record. It is worth mentioning that the revisional court cannot reassess or reappraise the evidence, and cannot upset the findings of fact recorded by the trial court by substituting its own finding. In the cases of State of Kerala v. K.M. Abdullah and Co., 1965 AIR(SC) 1585 Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2002 AIR(SC) 107 Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Keshvanand,1997 3 DCR 457; and Dulichand v. Delhi Administration, 1975 AIR(SC) 1960 it has been held that while the appellate jurisdiction is co -extensive with the original Court's jurisdiction as an appreciation and re -appreciation of evidence is concerned, the revisional court has simply to confine to the legality and propriety of the findings and as to whether the subordinate court acted within it's jurisdiction. A revisional court has no jurisdiction to set aside the findings of the fact recorded by the Magistrate and impose or substitute it's own findings. Sections 379 to 401 Cr.P.C. confer only limited power of revisional court to the extent of satisfying the legality, propriety or regularity of the proceedings or orders of the lower court and not to act like appellate court for other proposes including, the recording of new findings of fact on fresh appraisal of evidence.;