JUDGMENT : D.C. Gheewala, J. The petitioner wife had initially filed proceedings under section 125 of the Cri. P. Code, against opponent No. 1-Husband for claiming maintenance. An award of maintenance was passed in her favour. As the amount of maintenance fell in arrears she had filed execution proceedings and at that time respondent No. 1 husband prayed that as he was prepared to take back the wife, and as he was desirous of maintaining her the award be set aside. 2. It may be noted that the main ground on which the petitioner-wife had filed proceedings to claim maintenance was that the husband was casting aspersions against the character' of the wife and he was subjecting her to mental cruelty and physical violence. The husband in support of his say that he was prepared to take back the wife, examined witnesses as well. The learned Magistrate did not find that the offer to accept the wife was genuine but he definitely came to the conclusion that the offer was made more with a view to wriggle out of the responsibility of giving maintenance rather than a genuine desire to accept the wife. He, therefore, held against the husband and the matter was carried before the learned Sessions Judge by way of revision. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that as the wife had not stepped in the witness box the husband's say that he was prepared to accept the wife should be accepted. He, therefore, reversed the finding of the learned Magistrate and hence the present petition by way of a Special Criminal Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed. 3. Mr. S. D. Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1-husband raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of such a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and in support of his contention relied upon the Supreme Court decision reported at AIR 1984 Supreme Court P. 38. The observations of the Supreme Court made in para 7 of the said judgment can be extracted below with advantage. "A more decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227. The observations of the Supreme Court made in para 7 of the said judgment can be extracted below with advantage. "A more decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited ' to seeing that inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority", and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record much less on error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision." Relying upon these observations, Mr. Patel urged that even if there is an error of law Article 227 could, not entitle the High Court to correct the same because the High Court would not be sitting as an appellate authority and hence any exercise to correct the judgment of the Courts below would be in clear violation of the self imposed restrictions against the exercise of the jurisdiction under section 227 of the Constitution. 4. The Supreme Court's observation undoubtedly would be binding to this Court. But the above observations do not lay down such a blanket proposition whereby the powers of the High Court to do justice in case where gross injustice seems to have been perpetrated and the impugned order of the trial Court of first appellate court requires to be corrected. The self imposed restrictions on the High Court's exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution are decidedly for the purpose of parting and to litigation's upto the numerous tiers but no better use of Article 227 can be found than to do justice when injustice seems to have been perpetrated. 5. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate had clearly found that (he offer made by the husband was not genuine and it was made only with a view to shirk his responsibility under an award of maintenance passed by the court of competent jurisdiction. Even before this court, I am told that attempts at settling disputes amicably were made but the wife is definitely not inclined to go to the matrimonial home. Even before this court, I am told that attempts at settling disputes amicably were made but the wife is definitely not inclined to go to the matrimonial home. 6. When the learned Magistrate had after examining the witnesses before his own eyes appreciated the evidence, attempt made by the learned Sessions Judge to re-appraise the said evidence in a revision application was by itself an exercise it futility. The learned Sessions Judge clearly transgressed the jurisdiction which was vested in him. He had no business to reappraise the evidence and the above quoted observation of the Supreme Court also specifically define the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has clearly observed as extracted above, that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. The Sessions Judge having done what he was not supposed to do, this Court even under exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 can definitely correct such error. That will be clearly in consonance with the ratio of the Supreme Court decision on which Mr. Patel heavily relied. 7. The evidence of the husband and his witnesses was sought to be read by Mr. Patel even in a Special Criminal Application and he was permitted to do so. The husband has stated in his deposition and that too in examination-in-chief that at his place, there is no young lady and he is in need of the wife for attending to his aged mother as well as the house-hold and agricultural work. The wife is not needed by the husband because he definitely felt her need as a companion but she required by him when he found himself in such a tight corner that his house hold work remained unattended. This is his deposition in examination-in-chief. For the wild allegation against the chastity of the wife made by him in past. Mr. Patel appearing for the husband, states that even today the husband was prepared to make a thousand apologies for the same. One single word of genuine contrition uttered with sincerity will go a longer way in making an offended party forgive, than a thousand phrases couched in object language but behind which there is not an iota of sincerity. Mr. Patel appearing for the husband, states that even today the husband was prepared to make a thousand apologies for the same. One single word of genuine contrition uttered with sincerity will go a longer way in making an offended party forgive, than a thousand phrases couched in object language but behind which there is not an iota of sincerity. The very fact that the husband is prepared to make a thousand apologies, indicates how cheap and in sincere they are. Mr. Patel also urged that the husband was even prepared to give a security which will be stipulated bey the court for the safety of the wife and for his good behaviour. Miss Mehta, the learned Advocate appearing for the wife made a bold statement that under no circumstances the wife is prepared to go to her matrimonial home because she is mortally afraid for her own safety. If the wife on account of her past experience about the husband has been scared so staff that she is not even prepared to give a second thought to the proposal to going back to the matrimonial home, then the Court cannot with a view to settle the matrimonial dispute send back the wife. If something use to word happens thereafter non of the parties concerned in this litigation including the lawyers and the court itself would be able to sleep with an easy conscience. Examining all witnesses who have repeated the same story as that of the husband's genuine desire to get back the wife were unable to convince the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate who had the additional advantage of viewing witnesses before his own eyes was to my mind a better judge of the Character of the witnesses and the tenor of their evidence. In that view of the matter, I feel that the finding recorded by the learned trial Magistrate is entitled to the concurrence of this Court and not that of the learned Sessions Judge who oblivious of the fact that he had no business to reappreciate the evidence had indulged in the same. The petition requires to be allowed. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and that passed by the learned Magistrate is restored. The respondent No. 1 husband shall pay costs of the present proceedings to the petitioner wife which shall be quantified at Rs. 250/-. The petition requires to be allowed. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and that passed by the learned Magistrate is restored. The respondent No. 1 husband shall pay costs of the present proceedings to the petitioner wife which shall be quantified at Rs. 250/-. Rule made absolute. Appeal allowed.