Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Devidas Gangaram Mundfhale, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the judgment and order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar, which allowed Criminal Revision Application No.08 of 2011 filed by his wife, Malanbai. The revision was filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) against the Magistrate's order granting maintenance only to the son and denying maintenance to the wife. The Magistrate had concluded that the wife's statement that the petitioner regularly beat her was not believable. The Revisional Court reversed this finding and granted maintenance of Rs. 1000 per month to the wife. The petitioner argued that the Revisional Court exceeded its limited jurisdiction by interfering with factual findings that were not perverse. The respondent supported the revisional order, contending that the Magistrate had not properly considered the evidence. The High Court examined the scope of revisional powers under Section 397 CrPC and held that the Revisional Court could not substitute its own view for that of the Magistrate unless the findings were perverse. Since the Magistrate's finding that the wife's allegation of beating was not believable was a plausible view on facts, the Revisional Court erred in reversing it. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the revisional order, and restored the Magistrate's order denying maintenance to the wife.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Section 125 CrPC - Revisional Powers - The Revisional Court under Section 397 CrPC has limited jurisdiction and cannot interfere with factual findings of the Magistrate unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. - The Magistrate had disbelieved the wife's claim of regular beating and granted maintenance only to the son. The Revisional Court reversed this without finding perversity, which was impermissible. (Paras 2-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Revisional Court could interfere with the Magistrate's factual findings regarding the wife's entitlement to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC when those findings were not perverse.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar, and restored the order of the Magistrate denying maintenance to the wife.
Law Points
- Revisional court's limited power under Section 397 CrPC
- maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
- interference with factual findings only if perverse
