ORDER

Leave granted.

2. In this case, 1st appellant filed a claim for maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for herself and her child. Respondent denied the marriage set up by the 1st appellant. He also disowned the paternity of the child. Both sides adduced evidence by examining a number of witnesses. The magistrate evaluated the evidence and reached a conclusion that the 1st appellant failed to prove that there was a valid marriage between her and the husband. Regarding paternity of the child also, the magistrate found against the claim made by the 1st appellant. Consequently the claim was dismissed.

3. Challenging the above order of the magistrate the 1st appellant moved the High Court in revision. But unfortunately the High Court refused to entertain the revision at all and dismissed the application for revision summarily as per the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent tried to support the impugned order with the help of two decision of this Court in Pathumma and another v. Muhammad [(1996) 2 S.C.C. 585] and Santosh (Smt.) v. Naresh Pal [(1998) 8 S.C.C. 447]. He contended that it is not open to the High Court in revision to re-examine the