NIRMALA BAI Vs. RAMESHCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 8. 7. 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Manavar, District Dhar (M. P.) in Criminal Revision No. 66/2003.

(2.) THE applicant/wife filed an application under Section 125 of Cr. P. C, praying for award of Rs. 3,000 per month as the maintenance allowance to her. Her application was registered as M. Cr. C. No. 71/1999 in the Court of JMFC, Manavar, District Dhar. Non-applicant opposed the application by filing written statement. The learned JMFC, after recording the evidence adduced by the parties and after hearing the parties, by order dated 9. 4. 2003 allowed the application in part and directed to the non-applicant to pay Rs. 1,000 per month for the maintenance of the applicant. The non-applicant husband preferred a revison against the order of graning maintenance to the applicant. His revision was registered as Criminal Revision No. 66/2003. Applicant has also preferred a revision praying for enhancing the amount of maintenance awarded to her. This revision was registered as Criminal Revision No. 69/2003. Both the revisions were heard by the learned AS J, Manavar, District Dhar and both the revisions were decided by common order dated 8. 7. 2004. By this order the Criminal Revision No. 69/2003 filed by the applicant/wife was rejected while the Criminal Revision No. 66/2003 filed by the non-applicant/husband was allowed and the application of the applicant filed under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. was rejected by the Revisional Court. Hence, she has come up before this Court in revision.

(3.) THE learned Revisional Court has erred in disturbing the finding of the Trial Court after re-appreciating the evidence. The re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible by exercising the revisional jurisdiction and the findings of fact shall not be disturbed unless they are perverse.