Rajeshwari Prasad, J. - (1.) This is a petition in revision by one Shri Gappu Khan. Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Faridpur, district Bareilly, by his order dated 14 -7 -1965 in proceedings Under Sec. 488 Code of Criminal Procedure directed that the Petitioner should pay the sum of Rs. 50/ - and Rs. 25/ - per month to his wife and to his daughter by way of maintenance. The Petitioner was dissatisfied with that order of the learned Magistrate and he filed a petition in revision before the Sessions Judge, Bareilly. The learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly dismissed that revision petition on the 1st October, 1965 on the ground that the only questions that were sought to be urged before him related to findings of fact recorded by the learned Magistrate, consequently, no interference in revision was called for, by him.
(2.) In support of the revision petition in this Court, it has been urged on behalf of the revisionist that in his written statement filed before the learned Magistrate, he had clearly indicated that sometime ago he had divorced the wife in the presence of witnesses. It may be, that the courts below on evidence have come to the conclusion, that it had not been proved that twelve years prior to the date of the written statements, the Petitioner had divorced his wife, but what is urged before me is, that this acknowledgment, of divorce by the husband in the written statement itself, in law, would have the effect of bringing about divorce from the date of that acknowledgment. In this view of matter, it has been further urged that the wife could be entitled to maintenance only for the period of iddat which corresponds to three calendar months from the date of the divorce.
(3.) With regard to the claim of the daughter, it has been urged that it has not been proved that she is the really daughter of the Petitioner. It has been urged that receipt of the birth -register filed on behalf of the daughter was manipulated one and no reliance should have been placed on the same. It has also been urged that it was not admissible in evidence. The further grievance of the Petitioner is that the learned Sessions judge who was seized of the revision petition improperly refused to accept a document relating to the birth of the daughter, in evidence, which was sought to be tendered by the Petitioner.;