PARTHA SAKHA DATTA, J.

(1) The scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. has once again been argued by the petitioner-wife who has been denied maintenance by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Diamond Harbour in Criminal Motion No. 44 of 2006 through the order dated 18th of May, 2006 reversing thereby the grant of maintenance made by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Diamond Harbour upon hearing the application being case no. M-83 of 2005 corresponding to T.R. No. 312 of 2005 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued through her learned Advocate that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge impugned would reveal that the learned Judge was approaching in a manner as if he was trying an offence so as to find out if an offence has been adequately proved or not; and in fact the order passed in revision would reflect that the learned Judge did forget that he was not exercising appellate jurisdiction and the scope of interference with the order of the learned trial court was limited to find out if the order impugned before the learned Judge would appear to be perverse and was