BOLL CHAND HUKAM CHAND Vs. PARMESHRI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two connected revisions arise out of malntelnanca (proceedings initiated by Smt. Parmeshwari Cai Under Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code. Criminal Revision 1573 of 1962 is at the instance of Bool Chand the husband praying for quashing the order passed by the learned Magistrate whereas Criminal Revision 551 of 1963 is by Smt. Parmeshwari Bai praying for enhancement of the amount fixed by the learned Magistrate. It may be mentioned that the learned Magisrate "had granted a sum of Rs. 40/- P. M. Revisions preferred toy both the: parties before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, were dismissed.

(2.) ON revision in this Court Shri K. L. Sachdeva, 'learned Counsel for the husband has tried to take me through the evidence and has attempted to assail the conclusion on question of fact arrived at by the learned 'magistrate and endorsed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on revision. He has sought support for inducing me to go into the facts and re-assess the evidence toy relying on a Bench decision of this Court (to which I was a party) in Mst. Dhan Kaur v. Niranjan Singh 1960-62 Punj LR 395, and emphasis has been laid on para 14 of the judgment at page 402. It was observed there:? The learnad counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge in this case has given a finding that the respondent had neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner and that this finding is based on the statement of the petitioner herself. The respondent's counsel on the other hand submitted that the trial Court had given a contrary finding on this point and that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not competent to alter that finding of fact given by the trial Court in revision. This argument of the respondent's counsel, however, does not appeal to me because the provisions of Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are quite clear. The revisicmal Court can go into the question whether the finding given by an inferior Court is correct, legal or otherwise proper. This observation it may be meintioned was made by the. 'learned Single Judge (Bedi J.) who disposed of the revision finally after the Division Bench had decided the question of law referred, with the result that this observation has not the force of the Bench decision.

(3.) THE matter has recently been considered by the Supreme Court in Mehnga Singh v. Smt. Joginder Kaur, Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1960, DA 18-1-1962 (SC), In-which the following observations made by this Court in the same case (Criminal Revision No. 868 of 1959) (Punj), were approved and were described to be unexceptionable and to have laid down the correct proposition of law.-