- (1.) B. L. Yadav, J. This revision is directed against the order, dated 30th June, 1984 passed by 1st Additional Judicial Magistrate (Special Court-Economic Offences), Allahabad allowing the application for maintenance filed by the opposite party No. 1 Smt. Asha Devi and awarding a sum of Rs. 150/- to the wife and Rs. 100/- to the son as maintenance.
(2.) SHRI S. D. N. Singh learned counsel for the applicant strenuously urged that the alleged admission of the applicant that the second marriage is admitted, may be excluded and thereafter there remains no reliable evidence in support of the case of the opposite party and that the findings of the learned Magistrate were not correct as the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 was not reliable. It was further urged that the amount of maintenance was excessive. Shri P. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand urged that even after excluding the alleged admission of the appli cant, there was reliable evidence of P. W. 1 Smt. Asha Devi and P. W. 2 Shri Mool Chand which was admissible in evidence and that has been relied upon by the learned Magistrate. It has been further urged that the amount of main tenance cannot be said to be excessive as only a total sum of Rs, 250/- has been awarded as maintenance. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the first point for consideration is as to whether there is any other reliable evidence even after excluding the said admission There is evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 I have looked into their statements and they are admissible and I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, that there was any inherent lacuna in the statements of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2. The scope of revision in a case for maintenance has been considered by their Lord ships of the Supreme Court in the case of Pathumma and another v. Muhammad, AIR 1986 SC 1436. In this case it has been held in para 6 on page 1437 as follows "the questions whether the appellant No. 1 was the married wife of the respondent and whether the appellant No. 2 was legitimate or illegitimate child of the respondent, are pre-eminently questions of fact. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence as adduced by the parties, held that the appellant No 1 was not the wife of the respondent He further held on the basis of the evidence on record that the appellant No. 2 was the illegitimate child of the respondent. We are afraid, the learned Judge of the High Court committed an error in making a re-assessment of the evidence and coming to a finding that the appellant No. 2 was not the illegitimate child of the respondent. We have over selves considered the evidence on record and we agree with the learned Magistrate, who had taken much pains in analyzing the evidence, that the appellant No. 2 was the illegitimate child of the respondent. The High Court in its revision jurisdiction was not justified in substitut ing its own view for that of the learned Magistrate on a question of fact. "
(3.) I am of the view that scope and ambit of the revision is not so comprehensive as of an appeal. The propriety of the order and illegality in the impugned order arc main considerations in view of provisions under Sections 397/401 of the Code. Re-assessment of the evidence in not the scope of the Revision, provided that court below has properly appreciated and discussed the evidence on record. The assessment of evidence has been correctly made by the learned Magistrate and even after excluding the admission made by the applicant there is sufficient evidence (statements of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2) in support of the fact that the applicant has remarried. It has been further urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 have not witnessed remarriage of the applicant. Hence their statements are totally inadmissible but as regards the cruelty and beating the wife by the applicant, it was certainly stated by P. W. 1 and that has been accepted by the learned Magistrate in its clear finding of fact that the opposite party refused to maintain the wife and the wife was severally beaten by the husband.;