JUDGMENT : Legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order, dated 29.02.2020, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kokrajhar, in Misc Case No. 96m/2018, is challenged in this petition, under Sections 397/401, read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the petitioner, namely, Md. Dilbor Ali. It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned judgment and order, dated 29.02.2020, the learned Court below has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent (1st party) @ Rs. 5,000/ and @ Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of her minor son, with effect from the date of filing the petition i.e. 22.11.2018, till his attaining majority. 2. The factual background, leading to filing of the present petition, is briefly stated as under: “The respondent/1st party got married with the petitioner/2nd party on 27.09.2013, as per Islamic rites and rituals and thereafter, lived together as husband and wife. They are blessed with one child, namely Rafiqul Islam, on 27.01.2011. After sometime of her marriage, the petitioner had sold her jewellery for gambling and he, with his family members also demanded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ from her and also treated her cruelly and used to assault her. In connection with the same chalisha was held on many occasions and then effecting compromise she resumed conjugal life with the petitioner. The petitioner and his family members also scolded her to bring money from her parental house and when she went to her house the petitioner used to beat her. As she failed to bring a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ from her parental house on account of their poverty, she was driven out of the matrimonial home on 21.09.2018, along with her son. Then being unable to maintain herself, she had filed a petitioner under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kokrajhar seeking maintenance to her and her son. Thereafter, hearing both the parties the learned court below has allowed her petition and directed to pay maintenance to her as aforesaid.” 3. Then being unable to maintain herself, she had filed a petitioner under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kokrajhar seeking maintenance to her and her son. Thereafter, hearing both the parties the learned court below has allowed her petition and directed to pay maintenance to her as aforesaid.” 3. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court on the following grounds, that (i) The learned court below has committed grave error in granting maintenance to the respondent as there was no negligence on his part; (ii) The learned court below has committed material irregularity and passed the order without any legal cause; (iii) The statement of the respondent is contradictory, confusing and imaginary, having no element of truth; (iv) The learned court below while passing the award has failed to consider the evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses and also failed to consider that the work of mason and labourer is almost same; (v) The learned court below also failed to consider that in fact the petitioner was subjected to cruelty by the respondent by insulting him repeatedly by calling him as ‘Murkha’, and therefore, it is contended to set aside the same. 4. I have heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is ready to pay maintenance to the child but he is not at all ready pay maintenance to the respondent. Mr. Mahmud confined his argument mainly on two points. Firstly, Mr. Mahmud submits that the respondent is living apart from the petitioner without any cogent ground and the learned Court below has passed the impugned order without taking into account of the same and that the evidence of the respondent is not at all believable and full of contradiction and there was no demand of Rs. 2,00,000/. Secondly, Mr. Mahmud submits that the petitioner is a daily wage labourer and he used to work under mason and with that meager amount, he has to maintain his aged old and ailing parents, and as such, the impugned order suffers from manifest illegality and therefore, it is contended to set aside the same. Mr. 2,00,000/. Secondly, Mr. Mahmud submits that the petitioner is a daily wage labourer and he used to work under mason and with that meager amount, he has to maintain his aged old and ailing parents, and as such, the impugned order suffers from manifest illegality and therefore, it is contended to set aside the same. Mr. Mahmud also pointed out that in fact the respondent had subjected the petitioner to cruelty and she abused him by addressing as ‘murkha’, and that except her own evidence there is no evidence to support her case. Mr. Mahmud also submitted written argument and referred following case laws, one of Kerala High Court in N.P. Abu vs. Vellam Thottil Asma & Ors, Cri.R.P. No. 1027 of 1995 and Bheekha Ram vs. Goma Devi and Others, reported in 1999 RAJCRIC 1625, Shiv Kumar Yadav vs. Smti. Santoshi Yadav, reported in 2004 SCC ONLINE CHH 13, Devnarayan Haldar vs. Anushree Haldar (Smti.) reported in 2003 SCC 11 303, Anil vs. Smti. Sunita, Criminal Revision No. 829 of 2014. 6. On the other hand, Mr. M. Hussain, the learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the impugned order suffers from no illegality or infirmity requiring any interference of this Court. Mr. Hussain submits that the learned Court below has passed the order, after taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. Hussain further submits that the evidence of the respondent is clear and cogent and without any corroboration the same can be acted upon. Mr. Hussain further submits that the petitioner has sufficient income to support the respondent and that he has not filed any affidavit disclosing his assets and liabilities as directed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha, Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Cr.) No. 9503 of 2018) and pursuant to said decision the learned court below has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance from the date of filing the petition and as such the impugned judgment and order suffers from no infirmity and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and order, dated 29.02.2020, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kokrajhar and also perused the record of learned court below. 8. 7. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and order, dated 29.02.2020, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kokrajhar and also perused the record of learned court below. 8. It is to be mentioned here that to appreciate the argument so advanced by Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner this court has to embark upon the discussion of factual aspect and appreciation of evidence so recorded by the learned court below, which is usually not permissible while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. But, in the case of State of Maharastra vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and Others, reported in AIR 2004 SC 4412 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “22. 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 401 Cr.P.C is a provision enabling the High Court to exercise all powers of appellate court, if necessary, in aid of power of superintendence or supervision as a part of power of revision conferred on the High Court or the sessions court. 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 to 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 all appellate powers. Section 401 Cr.P.C conferring powers of appellate court on the revisional court is with the above limited purpose. The provisions contained in section 395 to section 401 Cr.P.C, read together, do not indicate that the revisional power of the High Court can be exercised as a second appellate power. 23. On this aspect, it is sufficient to refer to and rely on the decision of this Court in Dulichand v. Delhi Administration in which it is observed thus:- “The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restricted nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the purposes of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned magistrate and the learned additional sessions judge was correct. But even so the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse.” 9. In view of above this court is inclined to go into the factual aspect of the case, only to satisfy myself about the correctness of the finding or conclusion so arrived at by the learned court below. It appears that the learned Court below has framed following 3 (three) issues in deciding the petition: (i) Whether the opposite party having sufficient means neglected or refused to maintain his wife and children? (ii) Whether the petitioner is willfully living separately from opposite party without having any sufficient cause? (iii) Whether the petitioner and her minor children is entitled to any maintenance from the opposite party? 10. Thereafter, considering the evidence so adduced by the learned court below and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties the learned Court below arrived at a finding that the opposite party, inspite of having sufficient means has neglected to maintain his wife, the 1st party. The learned court below has also arrived at a finding that the wife did not left the matrimonial home willfully, but, under compelling circumstances. And as such, the learned court below held that the wife and the child is entitled to maintenance and ordered accordingly, as aforesaid. 11. It is to be mentioned here that during hearing of the petition an effort for reconciliation was made between the parties and this court had the opportunity to interact with both of them. The petitioner had stated that he is ready to maintain her on the condition of her living with him. The respondent is also ready to live with him on the condition of living separately in a rented accommodation at Bilashipara Town. But, the petitioner had expressed his inability and unwillingness to take a rented house. Therefore, the effort failed to yield any result. 12. It is worth mentioning here in this context that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a means to provide a speedy, inexpensive and effective remedy against persons who refuse or neglect their duty to maintain persons dependent on them. The section discharges a social function in order to achieve and maintain societal balance. 12. It is worth mentioning here in this context that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a means to provide a speedy, inexpensive and effective remedy against persons who refuse or neglect their duty to maintain persons dependent on them. The section discharges a social function in order to achieve and maintain societal balance. It also comes under Article 15 (3), which is further reinforced by Article 39. It is an important section that deals with women’s human rights and is a legal instrument of social relevance that is used to uphold the rights of the weaker section of society. See-Ramesh Chandra Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1807 . They are, in a way, aimed at preventing starvation and vagrancy relating to the commission of crimes. (Ref- 41st Law Report, Law Commission of India, 1969). 13. Keeping in mind the aforesaid objectives, I have carefully examined the finding so arrived at by the learned court below in the light of facts and circumstances on the record and also in the light of submissions, so advanced by the learned advocates of both side. And I find sufficient force in the submission, so advanced by Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent. It appears that the learned court below has rightly arrived at a finding that she has not left the matrimonial house at her own will. She had left the same under compelling circumstances, which she has averred in her petition and also deposed in her evidence and the same withstand the test of cross-examination. Further, it appears that he had never made any sincere attempt to take her back to his company. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been providing her and her son any maintenance on the ground that she has been leaving with her father not with him. Thus, the learned court below has rightly held that neglect and refusal to maintain the respondent stands established. And I find no just ground take a different finding. 14. It also appears from the materials on record that the petitioner is a Rajmistry and though he denied having earned a sum of Rs.500/ to Rs. 1000/ per day, yet, it appears that he is an able bodied person and he has landed properties also. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the cost of living of now a days the award of Rs. 1000/ per day, yet, it appears that he is an able bodied person and he has landed properties also. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the cost of living of now a days the award of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand) only to the respondent and Rs.3000/ (Rupees Three thousand) to her son seems to be not so unreasonable. In the days of sky rocketing of price all essential items, the respondent could only be able to manage 2 (two) square meals a day, not to speak of her leading a decent life. Besides, the child of the respondent was three and half years old at the relevant time, and now he is more than 7 (seven) years old and from the meager amount respondent has to bear the cost of his education also. From that point of view also, the sum so awarded by the learned Court below cannot be said to be an exorbitant one. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rajnesh (supra), there is no illegality in awarding the maintenance to the respondent by the learned court below from the date of filing the application. 15. I have considered the written argument submitted by Mr. Mahmud, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the case laws referred by him and because of the discussion, so made herein above and the finding recorded thereon; I am unable to record my concurrence with the same. Also I find that the case laws referred by Mr. Mahmud, are to be treated to be restricted to its own facts and therefore, would not come into his aid. Also I find that here in this case no two views are possible in the given facts and circumstances on the record. And even if possible also this Court cannot substitute its view for that of the trial court, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Reference in this context can be made to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Helper Girdharbhai vs. Saiyed Mohmad Mirsaheb Kadri and Ors., reported in AIR 1987 SC 1782 . 16. It is well settled that, normally, revisional jurisdiction has to be exercised on a question of law. And when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. 16. It is well settled that, normally, revisional jurisdiction has to be exercised on a question of law. And when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the Court. (See Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander [ (2012) 9 SCC 460 ]). Here in this case, the petitioner could not succeed in establishing existence of any illegality either in law or in facts requiring any interference of this court. 17. In the result, I find no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. It is provided that the petitioner shall make payment of the monthly maintenance to the respondent and her son regularly and shall clear the entire arrear amount in 2 (two) installments, within a period of 3 (three) months from today. The parties are left to bear their own cost.