Judgment:
S.R. Bhargava, J.
1. This revision is directed against the revisional order setting aside order of the Magistrate granting maintenance to the petitioner and her daughter under Section 125 Cr. P.C.
2. It is not disputed that the revisionist and opposite party no. 1 were married. Their marriage has not been happy and they have been living separately for long. Opposite party no. 1 filed a suit for restitution of conjugal right. On the other hand, the revisionist filed a petition under Section 125 Cr, P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and her daughter. She alleged that her husband assaulted her and divorced her. She further alleged that she is unable to maintain herself. Husband denied all the allegations of the wife and asserted that the wife has deserted without any rhyme or reason.
3. Learned Magistrate disbelieved the story of divorce alleged by the wife. The Magistrate, however, upheld the case of the wife that the husband assaulted her and that the wife is unable to maintain herself.
4. Husband preferred a revision against the order of Magistrate granting maintenance of Rs. 200/- p.m. to the wife and Rs. 100/- p.m. to the daughter.
5. Learned revisional Court did not disturb the finding of the Magistrate disbelieving the story of divorce pleaded by the wife. But he reappreciated the evidence. He discarded other witnesses and then said that on the sole testimony of the wife it cannot be said that the husband assaulted the wife. Hence the revisional Court allowed the revision and quashed the order of the Magistrate. In this revision it is to be said that the learned revisional Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate evidence. It should not be forgotten that the revision had only a limited scope in which only points of law and procedure have to be considered, finding of facts based on appreciation of evidence cannot be disturbed in revision after reappreciation of evidence. If the approach of the trial Court to the evidence is wholly perverse the revisional Court can interfere with the finding of fact. But in that case the revisional Court should remand the case to the trial Court with a direction for a fresh decision on proper appreciation of evidence but the revisional Court cannot supply its own finding of fact.
6. Hence the impugned order must be set aside. Since the revisional Court did not have proper idea of the scope of revision, it would be proper to remand the revision to the revisional Court for fresh decision according to law.
7. In result, revision is allowed. Revisional order dated 4th August, 1988, passed by VIth Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Revision No. 79 of 1987, Ishtiaq Khan v. Naushaba Khanam is set aside. Revision is sent back to the lower revisional Court for fresh disposal according to law and according to the observations made above.