Hon’ble M.K. Mittal, J.—This revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 15-3-2008 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut, in Case No. 431/06, under Section 125, Cr.P.C. Smt. Anupma v. Devendra Kumar. By his application the revisionist had prayed for summoning Sub-Inspector Mukesh Kumar Mishra, who had submitted a report on the application filed by the opposite party No. 2 under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C.

2. I have heard Sri Raj Kumar Khanna, learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the material on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Anupma Verma, opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance against the present revisionist. In the application she alleged about the harassment and the ill-treatment as well as neglect of the revisionist and also that she was not able to maintain herself whereas the revisionist was financially sound. In that application she also alleged in para 14 that on 12-11-2006 at about 10 p.m. her in-laws including her husband came to her Maika at Moradabad and abused her and said that they would not allow her to live in their house unless Maruti Car was given. They abused and threatened but on account of intervention of some neighbourers the accused went away threatening to kill her and to have second marriage of Devendra.

4. The application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. was filed on 17-11-2006. The opposite party No. 2 also filed an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. against her husband and others on 20-11-2006 regarding the alleged incident of 12-11-2006. In that matter the learned Magistrate called for a report from the concerned police station and Mukesh Kumar Mishra the Sub-Inspector gave a report dated 24-11-2006 to the effect that the allegations regarding harassment and Marpeet were alleged to have taken place at Shiv Puram in District Haridwar which was beyond the jurisdiction of his police station Nagphani District Moradabad. The incident dated 12-11-2006 was not supported and the other party could not be interrogated in the matter for shortage of time.

5. The revisionist filed an application in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, for summoning the Sub-Inspector Mukesh Kumar Mishra to prove the fact that the alleged incident of 12-11-2006 was false but the learned Judge rejected the application by the impugned order on the ground that the report is called for from Police Station under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. to the effect whether case has been registered or not and no order is passed regarding the actual dispute and if the Police Inspector makes any investigation that will be concerned with that case only and it will have no effect in the proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and there was no necessity to summon the Sub-Inspector as a witness. He also held that the defendant revisionist could file his evidence to substantiate his contention that the allegation as made by his wife were not correct and the Court could not consider the correctness of the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. in a proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C. Consequently, he rejected the application. Feeling aggrieved this revision has been filed.

6. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that the evidence of Mukesh Kumar Mishra Sub-Inspector who investigated the case under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. is material for his defence and by refusal he has been prejudiced as he would not be able to establish the fact that the alleged incident of 12-11-2006 is false. He has also contended that the revisionist be allowed to adduce that evidence so that the correct fact may come on record. Against it the learned AGA has contended that the testimony of Mukesh Kumar Mishra the Sub-Inspector is not relevant at all as he did not make any investigation because no such investigation was directed by the Court. He also submitted that the purpose of the report called under Section 156(