SANKAR ACHARYYA, J. - (1.) This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by petitioner Latika Banerjee against her husband Ajoy alias Bablu Banerjee and the State of West Bengal as opposite party nos. 1 and 2 respectively challenging the judgment and order dated 24th June, 2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Purulia in Criminal Revision No. 7 of 2007 by which the judgment and order dated 28th December, 2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia in Misc. Case No. 120 of 1996 has been set aside. Petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 120 of 1996 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) against her husband opposite party no. 1 for getting maintenance allowance for herself and her minor son Tarun Banerjee . Firstly, on 13.10.1999 prayer of the petitioner for her maintenance was rejected but in respect of prayer for maintenance of minor Tarun Banerjee, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed for payment at the rate of Rs.400/ - per month by the opposite party no. 1. Petitioner challenged that order before learned Sessions Judge filing Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2000 before the learned Sessions Judge, Purulia. Said revisional application was allowed on 3rd March, 2001. The order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia on 13.10.1999 in Misc Case No. 120 of 1996 under Section 125, Cr.P.C. rejecting the application of the wife for maintenance was set aside and the case was sent back to the learned Trial Court for proper consideration of the application for maintenance of the wife in the light of observations made in the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Purulia. The opposite party no. 1 challenged the said judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Purulia before this High Court filing CRR No. 917 of 2001. A coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of that revisional application (CRR No. 817 of 2001 on 13.01.2005) with observation that there is no merit in the revisional application and being so the revisional application fails and dismissed. Learned Judge held in that order, "Further I make it clear that whatever I have stated above or observed should not be considered as opinion regarding merit of the case and the concerned Court at appropriate stage would act in accordance with law and the learned Court below would arrive at his own conclusion and would not be guided by the observations made by this Court in this revisional application".
(2.) Thereafter, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia heard the case and passed his judgment on 28.12.2006 by which the petition filed by petitioner under Section 125, Cr.P.C. was allowed on contest with an order that the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.1200/ - per month from the opposite party as her maintenance. Said judgment was challenged by the opposite party no. 1 before the learned Sessions Judge, Purulia filing Criminal Revision No. 7 of 2007. Said revisional application was heard by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Purulia and the impugned judgment dated 24.06.2011 was passed. By that judgment the revisional application was allowed and the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2006 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia in Misc. Case No. 120 of 1996 was set aside. Said judgment dated 24.06.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Purulia is under challenge before this Court in this revisional application.
(3.) Inter alia, the petitioner herein has contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the evidence of the petitioner and her witness and that the impugned judgment is bad in law and liable to be set aside.;