GULAB PATI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of order dated 11.4.1986 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Basti in Revision No. 255 of 1985 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) 1st Court, Basti in Misc. Case No. 14 of 1981.

(2.) The revisionist case, in short, is that she was married to the respondent No. 2, who was an employee of Air Force 17-18 years ago and on 11.12.1970 she gave birth to a female child, namely, Shashi Bala. The allegation is that the respondent No. 2 in collusion with his father wanted to contact another marriage started torturing and harassing the revisionist. In the first week of January, 1981 father of the respondent No. 2 assaulted her badly and thrown her out of the house threatening with dire consequences. The revisionist had to go to her father's house with her daughter, wrote several letters to the respondent No. 2 requesting him to take her back or offer subsistance allowance for their maintenance and education to her daughter. Letters were not replied. On the other hand the respondent No. 2 married another lady, named, Pushpa Rani, an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. was filed by the revisionist in the Trial Court, who after taking evidence of both the parties allowed the application and granted Rs. 250/-per month as maintenance to the revisionist and Rs. 150/- per month as maintenance to her daughter. A revision was preferred by the respondent No. 2 before the Sessions Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge took an erroneous view of law and fact and allowed the revision by setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate. Hence this revision.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the Revisional Court cannot assess the evidence and substitute its own finding by disbelieving the statement of the revisionist and her witnesses and also disbelieving the documentary evidence filed in connection with the marriage and relationship of the revisionist with the respondent No. 2 without giving proper reason. He has referred a decision reported in A.C.C. 1986, page 286 (SC) and submitted that the assessment of evidence during the pendency of the revision is not permissible. So the Court has got no jurisdiction to substitute its own finding of fact and reverse the finding of the learned Magistrate, holding in favour of the revisionist. It has been decided in that reported case that the Court has committed an error in making reassessment of the evidence and coming to a finding that the appellant No. 2 was not a legitimate child of the respondent.