Umesh Ravidas v. The State Of Bihar & Ors.

petitioner. The first and foremost happens to be over denial of interse relationship. It has further been submitted that petitioner happens to be married with one Rita Devi @ Shila Devi with Patna High Court CR. REV. No.992 of 2011 (5) dt.19-11-2013 2 whom he had four children. The Opposite Party No.2/applicant Bimla Devi happens to be a stranger who only to have illegal gain indulged in the series of litigations making the life of petitioner hell. It has further been submitted that all the witnesses examined on behalf of Bimla Devi happens to be kith and kin of Bimla Devi while the petitioner had examined independent witnesses counting ten. It has further been submitted that Opposite Party Witness No.1 happens to be his wife Shila Devi who had consistently proved her status to be legally wedded wife of petitioner leaving no scope for the alleged applicant. In likewise manner Opposite Party Witness No.10 happens to be the petitioner/husband himself who had also faced the cross-examination and proved his case to the extent that Bimla Devi does not happens to be his wife.

4. At the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 that she happens to be the first wife. It has further been submitted that for the purpose of adjudicating upon theme of spouse under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., prima-facie material has to be seen which, the Opposite Party No.2 having sufficiently placed. It has further been submitted petitioner/Opposite Party husband being a police constable when began to torture after re-marriage and further kicked her out, a proceeding under Section 498(A) along with other allied Sections Patna High Court CR. REV. No.992 of 2011 (5) dt.19-11-2013 3 was drawn up bearing no.C-994 of 2009 and the aforesaid case was compromised whereunder status of the applicant/Opposite Party No.2 has fully been acknowledged. It is also evident from the evidence of witnesses of rival parties that status of petitioner has fully been recognized. The relevant order-sheets, compromise petition, joint photographs, judgment were exhibited during course of trial and the impugned judgment contains reference thereof at an appropriate stage. It has further been submitted that the applicant/Opposite Party Witness No.2 should have been given more amount in lieu of maintenance than Rs.1,500/- so granted by the learned Lower Court.

5. In a case Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi v. Pyla Suri Demudu and Another reported in (2011)12 SCC 189 the Hon’ble Apex Court had forbidden while exercising revisional jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence on the score of tracing out inter-se relationship against the finding recorded by the learned Lower Court on this score. It has further been held that a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. happens to be a summary proceeding whereunder status of the parties is to be seen on superficial evidence. If the parties so desire, they are at liberty to approach before the competent court for proper adjudication and declaration. For better appreciation, paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 are Patna High Court CR. REV. No.992 of 2011 (5) dt.19-11-2013 4 quoted below:- allowing application “14. In fact, we also find sufficient substance in the plea that the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction ought not to have entered into a scrutiny of the finding recorded by the Magistrate that the appellant was a married wife of the respondent, before determining maintenance as it is well settled that the Revisional Court can interfere only if there is any illegality in the order or there is any material irregularity in the procedure or there is an error of jurisdiction. 15. The High Court under its revisional jurisdiction reappreciation of evidence recorded in the order granting maintenance; at the most it could correct a patent error of jurisdiction. It has been laid down in a series of decisions including Suresh Mandal v. State of Jharkhand (2006) 1 AIR Jhar R 153 that in a case granted learned Magistrate maintenance holding that the wife had been neglected and the wife was entitled to maintenance, the scope of interference by the Revisional Court is very limited. The revisional Court would not substitute its the maintenance order own finding and upset recorded by the Magistrate. required

16. In a revision against the maintenance order passed in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, the Revisional Court has no power to reassess evidence and substitute its own findings. Under revisional jurisdiction, the questions whether the applicant is a married wife, the children are legitimate/illegitimate, being pre-eminently questions of fact, cannot be reopened and the Revisional Court cannot substitute its own views. The High Court, therefore, is not required in revision to interfere with the positive finding in favour of the marriage and patronage of a child. But where finding is a negative one, the High Court would entertain the revision, re-evaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion whether the findings or conclusions reached by the Magistrate are legally sustainable or not as negative finding has evil consequences on the life of both the child and the woman. This was the view expressed by the Supreme Patna High Court CR. REV. No.992 of 2011 (5) dt.19-11-2013 5 Court in Santosh v. Naresh Pal 4(1998) 8 SCC 447 as also in Pravati Rani Sahoo v. Bishnupada Sahoo (2002) 10 SCC 510. Thus, the ratio decidendi which emerges out of a catena of authorities on the efficacy and value of the order passed by the Magistrate while determining maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is that it should not be disturbed while exercising revisional jurisdiction.”

6. Thus, this Court while exercising the revisional power in terms of principle as settled found forbidden from adjudicating upon the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner by way of re-appraisal of the evidence. The petitioner is at liberty to seek such declaration, if he so desires, by a competent court. So far quantum of maintenance is concerned, there is no dispute with regard to petitioner being employed as a police constable. It is also not denied with regard to salary what he is drawing on monthly basis.

7. Consequent thereupon, instant petition is found devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected. (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) B.Kr./-