SULOCHNABCN PRANJIVAN PATEL Vs. BHAILALBHAI SHANTILAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner wife filed an application under S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the respondent No.1 -husband in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jambusar. The learned Magistrate did not believe her evidence and rejected that application. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No.138 of 1983 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Bharuch. The learned Sessions Judge agreed with the appreciation of evidence and the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate; and dismissed the revision application. As second revision application is barred, the petitioner-wife has filed this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) What is urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the Courts below have not taken into consideration one aspect of illtreatment which amounted to mental cruelty to the wife. That aspect is that the petitioner wife was not allowed to enter the kitchen for preparing food. Even if that is so, it is not found justifying interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Art. 227 and to set aside the order passed by the Courts below. On appreciation of her evidence the Courts below have come to the conclusion that her evidence cannot be relied upon. Whether she was allowed to enter the kitchen or not depends upon her oral testimony. If her evidence is otherwise found to be unbelievable, the fact that the aspect indicated by the learned advocate for the petitioner was considered or not would not make much difference. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a compelling reason justifying interference by this Court in a petition under Art. 227. As the Supreme Court has pointed out, in case where second revision application is barred the High Court should not entertain a petition under Art. 227, because that would amount to permitting the parties to circumvent the provision of law. Therefore, unless any question of jurisdiction is involved or a compelling reason exists, it would not be proper for this Court to exercise power under Art. 227. The petition will have, therefore, to be dismissed.