Judgment:
R.S. Garg, J.
1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.5.1992 passed in Criminal Revision No. 26/1991 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Betui, reversing the order dated 25.4.1991 passed in Criminal Case No. 14 of 1986, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Betui, theapplicant has filed the revision against the rejection of the application filed Under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
2. The applicant wife filed an application Under Section 125, Cr.P.C. on 24.2.1989, alleging therein that the husband was treating her with cruelty and was not maintaining her, though he was a man of means. After the notices were issued to the non-applicant, on 23.9.1989, he filed an application before the Trial Court challenging the territorial jurisdiction on the ground that the present applicant was living with her brother at a place which was not within the territorial jurisdiction. Onl5.12.1989, the non-applicant filed a reply to the petition and inter alia pleaded that the parties were married in the year 1973 and an off-spring was born. It was submitted by him that in the year 1975 (10.6.1975), he had given divorce to the wife and since then the parties were living separately. In proof of the divorce, he produced the document Ex. NA-1 before the Trial Court. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions and after hearing the parties the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the husband could not prove his case regarding divorce and reliance could not be placed on Ex. NA-1. The Trial Court granted maintenance in favour of the wife, directing that a sum of Rs. 450/- per month be paid by the husband to the wife.
3. The husband took up a revision before the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Trial Court, holding that the evidence of the husband and other witnesses shows that the husband has divorced the wife and Ex. NA-1 was executed between the parties. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Revisional Court, this revision has been filed.
4. Mr. Imtiaz Hussain contended that ordinarily a Revisional Court should be loath in interfering with the findings recorded by the Trial Court because ordinarily a Revisional Court is not entitled to reappreciate the evidence. He also contended that the Trial Court has given a reasoned judgment and has also given reasons for disbelieving the evidence of the husband and for not placing reliance on Ex. NA-1. According to him/all these findings could not be reversed by the Revisional Court, unless reasons for reversing the same were given by the Re-visional Court. Referring to para 7 of the Revisional Court's judgment, it was submitted by him that the well reasoned findings recorded by the Trial Court could not be reversed in a caviller fashion. He has taken me through the judgment of Trial Court. To my mind, the learned Judge of the Trial Court has given detailed reasons for not relying upon the evidence of the non-applicant. If these findings were required to be set a side/then it was the duty of the Revisional Court first to hold that the findings were bad or could not have been arrived at by an ordinary prudent man. The Court has to substitute its finding by not giving proper reasons. In my opinion, the Revisional Court has not exercised its jurisdiction properly and has wrongly set aside the findings. The findings recorded by the Revisional Court are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Revisional Court for consideration of the revision on its own merits. The applicant is directed to appear before the revisional Court on 30.10.1995. As Mr. Gangaradu appears for the other side, the Revisional Court shall not issue notice to the other side. The revision is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the learned Revisional Court to decide the matter in accordance with law.