Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 897 (ALL)

Angoori Devi v. State of U. P. and another

2010-03-17

VIRENDRA SINGH

body2010
Virender Singh, J.; - 1. Angoori Devi, the revisionist, has preferred this revision against judgement and order dated 19.03.1999 passed by Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Misc. Case No. 804/1994 (Smt. Angoori Devi vs. Sohan Lal and Others) u/s 125 CrPC, P.S. Prem Nagar, District Bareilly whereby the application for maintenance allowance as per provisions u/s 125 CrPC moved by the revisionist has been dismissed. 2. At the time of hearing of this Revision, learned counsel for the revisionist appeared and has been heard. No one appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2 Sohan Lal while learned AGA remained present on behalf of State of U.P. (Respondent No. 1). 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the impugned order is illegal and perverse because the revisionist is legally wedded wife of respondent no. 2 and holding otherwise in this regard, the learned Judge has committed a material illegality. One son and one daughter were born with the wedlock of the revisionist and respondent no. 2. Learned Lower Court wrongly disbelieved the evidence of Anil Kumar the son of the revisionist, who himself claimed to be her son. Some minute contradictions regarding the marriage in between the parties could not be the basis of discarding the fact of the marriage between the parties. The revisionist and respondent no. 2 lived together as husband and wife is the fact very well established even in the evidence of Babu Ram, the real brother-in-law of respondent no. 2. The divorce had tken place between the revisionist and one Bittan Lal, the earlier husband of the revisionist in the year 1965 vide judgement and order dated 27.01.1965 in Petition No. 27/1964 (Smt. Angoori Devi vs. Bittan Lal) and after divorce, the revisionist married with respondent no. 2. Since the divorce certificate was not available with the revisionist at the stage of trial, the same has been now procured by the revisionist. 4. The learned AGA contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order either on the facts of the case or in the eyes of law and the learned Lower Court has rightly rejected the application of the revisionist for maintenance thereby finding that neither the revisionist legally wedded wife of respondent no. 2 nor the revisionist is unable to maintain herself. 5. In the light of the aforesaid contentions, I have gone through the facts and circumstances on record. 6. 2 nor the revisionist is unable to maintain herself. 5. In the light of the aforesaid contentions, I have gone through the facts and circumstances on record. 6. The law relating to Revision as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases as well as various High Courts of this country is summarized as below: - "The revisional court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the Appellate Court by virtue of the provisions contained in section 401 Cr.P.C. Section 397 Cr.P.C. confers power on the High Court or Sessions Court as the case may be, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court. It is for the above purpose, if necessary, the High Court or Sessions court can exercise of appellate powers. Section 401 Cr.P.C. conferring power of Appellate court on the Revision court is with the above limited purpose. Section 395 to 401 Cr.P.C. read together do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as the consequent appellate power. The revision powers though very wide are purely discretionary, to be fairly exercised according to the exigencies of each case. It is very well settled that it is normally to be exercised only unexceptional case if there is glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error of point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. These powers are extraordinary powers which must be exercised with due regard to the circumstances of each particular case. High Court will not interfere on a technical ground, but only when substantial question arises or when a material error effects the decision. It may interfere when a jurisdiction vested has been exercised in an improper manner or improper ground. Even if the order is wrong or illegal, The High Court will not always interfere when substantial justice has been done or no prejudice has resulted to the accused. The error of law must lead to a failure of justice. In Revisional matter the High Court does not take a technical view and interfere in every case when an order has been made irregular or improper. The error of law must lead to a failure of justice. In Revisional matter the High Court does not take a technical view and interfere in every case when an order has been made irregular or improper. The fact that the High Court as an court of appeal might have taken different view is no ground for interference. The revisional jurisdiction will not be exercised in such a way as a given right of appeal in cases excluded by the Criminal Procedure Code." 7. Looking into the aforesaid law and the facts and circumstances on record, I am of this view that since the revisionist could not prove her divorce with her earlier husband named Bittan Lal before the Trial Court, therefore, she cannot be treated the legally wedded wife of respondent no. 2 for claiming the maintenance. It is also revealed on record that Case No. 61/1988 was also filed by the revisionist against respondent no. 2 for maintenance and since in that case too, she could not prove herself to be the wife of respondent no. 2, the aforesaid case was also dismissed. Not only this, further it revealed that the revisionist had filed another suit against Narain, son of Panno thereby showing herself to be wife of Ram Asrey. In the light of such facts on record, the learned Lower Court committed no error thereby refusing the claim of the revisionist as the legally wedded wife of respondent no. 2. 8. The perusal of the record further shows that the revisionist has not been found unable to maintain herself as she herself admitted that she is maintaining herself and when she became a woman with money, she filed this case of maintenance against respondent no. 2. Not only this, her son named Anil Kumar has also admitted that his mother is the licensee of a Fair Price Shop and this fact further found support by the notice of the Additional District Magistrate (Supply) and the record of the bank pertaining to loan in this regard. Therefore, I do not find further any illegality in the impugned order as the revisionist is found to be able to maintain herself. 9. Hence, there is no substance in this revision which is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed accordingly.