This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.1.95 passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Barpeta in Criminal Motion No. 1 (B-1)/94 setting aside the judgment and order dated 27.9.93 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Barpeta in Misc Case No. 129m/91 under section 125 CrPC directing the second party-opposite party to pay a monthly allowance of Rs.200 to the first party-petitioner for her maintenance.

2. The first party's case in brief is that on 30.3.91 she was married to the second party according to the Muslim Law and after the marriage both of them live as husband and wife in her parents' house for about a week. Thereafter, the 2nd party left for his own house on the pretext of appearing in his college examination. He did not return to take the first party to his house, nor has he maintained her since then. The first party then instituted the above misc case under section 125 CrPC in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate claiming a monthly allowance of Rs.400 for her maintenance.

3. Second party contested the claim. He disputed the factum of marriage and denied to have ever lived with the first party as husband and wife. He alleged that the first party instituted the false case against him out of grudge.

The first party examined 5 witnesses including herself. The second party examined himself and 3 other witnesses.

4. After considering the evidence on record and hearing the parties, learned Magistrate held that there was marriage between the parties as alleged by the first party and passed the order dated 27.9.93 allowing the maintenance allowance to the first party as stated above. Being aggrieved, the second party filed revision, but none appeared for him at the time of hearing. The learned Sessions Judge heard the learned counsel appearing for the first party and on reappreciation of evidence held that the marriage between the parties was not proved and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate by his judgment and order dated 16.1.95 impugned in the instant revision before this Court.

5. I have considered records of the case and have heard Mr. AS Choudhury, learned counsel for the first party/petitioner and Mr. S. Muktar learned counsel for the second party/opposite party.

Mr. Choudhury appearing for the first party/petitioner has strenuously argued that the revisional jurisdiction under section 397 CrPC is limited and is only for the satisfaction as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding and as to the regularity of any proceeding of an inferior Court, that the learned Sessions Judge in utter disregard to such legal position set aside the order of the learned Magistrate causing grave injustice to the first party. Mr. Choudhury has further argued that it was not open to the learned Sessions Judge exercising revisional jurisdiction to take contrary view as to the finding of facts on reappreciation of evidence. Mr. Choudhury has referred to the decision in Sethu Rathinam Pillai's case reported in (1971) 3 SCC 923 wherein it has been held that the order passed in an application for maintenance is a summary order which does not finally determine the rights and obligation of the parties thereto and that such a provision for maintenance in the Criminal Procedure Code is enacted with a view to provide a summary remedy for providing maintenance and for preventing vagrancy. On the other hand, Mr. Muktar appearing for the second party/opposite party submits that the learned a Sessions Judge arrived at the right conclusion that no marriage was solemnised and hence, the impugned judgment and order does not call for any interference. 6. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I have found that the learned Sessions Judge recorded several reasons for arriving at the conclusion that no mamage was solemnised. Learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of the first party PWI and found her evidence self contradictory. It is true that she said that the second party left for his own ho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document