RABINDRA CH RAY Vs. MAMATARANI SAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 10. 8. 1998 - Heard.

(2.) ON consent of both the parties, the above noted two revisions are disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission by this common order.

(3.) THE facts which are relevant for the present purpose are noted herewith. Petitioner is the husband of the opposite party. Her case under Section 125, Cr.P.C. was that petitioner was an impotent and when she pointed out that fact, she was assaulted and was driven out. According to the opposite party, the petitioner having extra marital relation with others, deserted him and went and stayed with one Prasanta Patra. They are living as husband and wife and have begot a child. Both the parties contested the case and adduced evidence. On assessment of such evidence, learned S.D.J.M. allowed the claim for maintenance and granted her monthly maintenance @ Rs. 250/ - per month. Thus, petitioner has approached the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadrak under Section 397, Cr.P.C. and that application has been registered as Criminal Revision No. 60/93. In that Revision, petitioner filed two documents, i.e., a Voter List and a School Admission Register in support of his stand that the opposite party has led conjugal life with that Prasanta Patra. Though initially there was contention on behalf of the opposite party that the Revisional Court has no authority or power to accept additional evidence, but in view of the ratio in the case of Vinod Kumar v. Smt. Mohrawati, 1990 Crl, Law Journal page 2068, learned Addl. Sessions Judge accepted the legal position that Revisional Court has the power and jurisdiction to accept additional evidence. However, he rejected the petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that those documents are not relevant.