ORDER

Rajeshwari Prasad, J. - This is a petition in revision by one Shri Gappu Khan. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Faridpur, district Bareilly, by his order dated 14-7-1965 in proceedings u/s 488 Code of Criminal Procedure directed that the Petitioner should pay the sum of Rs. 50/- and Rs. 25/- per month to his wife and to his daughter by way of maintenance. The Petitioner was dissatisfied with that order of the learned Magistrate and he filed a petition in revision before the Sessions Judge, Bareilly. The learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly dismissed that revision petition on the 1st October, 1965 on the ground that the only questions that were sought to be urged before him related to findings of fact recorded by the learned Magistrate, consequently, no interference in revision was called for, by him.

2. In support of the revision petition in this Court, it has been urged on behalf of the revisionist that in his written statement filed before the learned Magistrate, he had clearly indicated that sometime ago he had divorced the wife in the presence of witnesses. It may be, that the courts below on evidence have come to the conclusion, that it had not been proved that twelve years prior to the date of the written statements, the Petitioner had divorced his wife, but what is urged before me is, that this acknowledgment, of divorce by the husband in the written statement itself, in law, would have the effect of bringing about divorce from the date of that acknowledgment. In this view of matter, it has been further urged that the wife could be entitled to maintenance only for the period of iddat which corresponds to three calendar months from the date of the divorce.

3. With regard to the claim of the daughter, it has been urged that it has not been proved that she is the really daughter of the Petitioner. It has been urged that receipt of the birth-register filed on behalf of the daughter was manipulated one and no reliance should have been placed on the same. It has also been urged that it was not admissible in evidence. The further grievance of the Petitioner is that the learned Sessions judge who was seized of the revision petition improperly refused to accept a document relating to the birth of the daughter, in evidence, which was sought to be tendered by the Petitioner.

4. So far as the question whether Kumari Rashidan is really the daughter of the Petitioner or not is concerned, I am of the view that that is the subject matter of the concurrent finding of fact, arrived at by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge. I am not entitled to question that finding so long as it is shown to be based upon some evidence by those courts. I am not in agreement with the Learned Counsel for the revisionist that that document was inadmissible in evidence. It is a part of receipt which had to be maintained by the Gram Panchayat under the rules and bears the seal and signature of the authorities of that Gram Panchayat. If this is so, then no formal proof of the document was necessary and document certainly is admissible in evidence. Neither the learned Magistrate nor the learned Sessions Judge was satisfied with the contention made on behalf of the Petitioner that the receipt was a faked receipt said to have been issued by Gram Panchayat which did not exist in fact. I, therefore, hold that Kumari Rashidan being the daughter of the Petitioner is entitled to appropriate maintenance allowance. The amount fixed by the courts below so far as the daughter is concerned is Rs. 25/- per month. There is some evidence on the record to show that the Petitioner is possessed of substantial landed property. On the materials on the record, the learned Magistrate thought it appropriate to fix the sum of Rs. 25/- per month as maintenance allowance for the daughter. I do not feel that I am called upon to interfere with that finding which again is a finding of fact.

5. So far as the claim of Shrimati Hashmati is concerned, I think that the submission made