- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State respondents and perused the record.
(2.) This revision has been filed against the judgment dated 28.03.2007 passed by Principal Judge Family Court Meerut in case no. 717 of 2002 (Smt. Purnima Vs. Dharmendra @ Jugnu under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Admitted case of the parties is that the revisionist and O.P. no.-2 are legally wedded wife and husband whose marriage still subsists, but they are living separately. Wife- revisionist had filed petition under section 125 CrPC for her maintenance against her husband, in which the Court below had afforded opportunity of hearing and thereafter rejected the application of the revisionist-applicant on ground that wife had good means of earning for her livelihood and she is living separately by her own wish. This order of maintenance has been challenged in present revision. In ruling "Jagannath Choudhary & ors vs. Ramayan Singh & another, 2002 AIR(SC) 2229 " Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under :- "Where the court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order, the revision cannot succeed. If the impugned order apparently is presentable, without any such infirmity which may render it completely perverse or unacceptable and when there is no failure of justice, interference cannot be had in exercise of revisional jurisdiction". "It is not an appeal wherein scrutiny of evidence is possible, neither the revisional jurisdiction is open for being exercised simply by reason of the factum of another view being otherwise possible."
(3.) The judgment in question is based on finding that wife had means of earning for her livelihood. This finding of fact has been reached by the Court below on basis of evidences adduced before it. These findings are apparently correct and based on available evidences. Such findings cannot be interfered through exercise of revisional jurisdiction on ground that on basis of those evidences another conclusion, other than the one reached by trial is also possible. Apart from it, in present set of circumstances there is no need to grant her maintenance. Therefore, impugned order appears to be correct and proper. There is no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in it that may require interference it it through exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Therefore revision fails, and is hereby dismissed.;