SUHANA S NAGORI Vs. SIKANDARKHAN BILALKHAN NAGORI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Whether in a Criminal Revision Application challenging the impugned order of maintenance awarded to wife and children, the Sessions Court was justified in reappreciating the evidence as if fitting in appeal and thereby quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be without jurisdiction and/or in any way perverse beyond the ken of ordinary prudence?" This question arises in the background of the fact-situation as stated hereunder:

(2.) Heard Mr. M.M. Tirmizi, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. U.A. Trivedi, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State. The respondent No. 1 husband, though only served, has neither remained personally present nor through his learned Advocate. Accordingly, this petition is disposed off with the assistance of the learned APP.

(3.) On going through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, it requires to be stated at the very outset that the same is ex facie illegal and perverse, which once restoring the order passed by the learned Magistrate awarding maintenance to the petitioner and her two minor children. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge has clearly over-looked and ignored firstly the scope and extent of his revisional powers; and secondly, the fundamental principles of appreciation of evidence entering the prohibited zone of perversity. The whole thrust of his unfortunate reasoning for discarding the evidence of the petitioner is based on two major planks, viz., (i) that no independent witnesses either from the neighbourhood or otherwise is examined by the petitioner-wife in support of her allegations; and (ii) that the father PW. 18 Bhikhumiya and the uncle PW. 20 Faridkhan Hemantkhan Nagori, whom the petitioner examined, they being related to her were interested witnesses and accordingly cannot be said to lend much needed independent corroboration to her evidence.