DINESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Singh, J. Heard Mr. Devendra Dehma, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. N. K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 Smt. Bimla Devi and Mr. Patanjali Misra, learned A. G. A. for the opposite party No. 1.

(2.) BY the impugned judgment and order the learned Additional Session Judge, Aligarh has remanded back the petition under Section 125, Cr. P. C. for reconsideration after hearing both the parties on the point raised in the im pugned judgment-if the statement of Bimla Devi in divorce suit in the Court of Addl. District Judge Delhi operates against her under Section 127 (3) (c) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) SINCE the matter has been left sub judice and it is going back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for hearing the parties afresh and to decide the question raised by the learned Additional Session Judge, there is no point in assailing the same in revisional jurisdiction. The revision peti tion is totally misconceived. The ground taken by the revisionist in this revision petition can very well be taken before the Chief Judicial Magistrate where the main tenance petition will be reconsidered and that order is again to be assailed if the revisionist is aggrieved in the proper legal Forum. Accordingly this revision is dis missed. However there is no order as to cost.