Point of Law: There are and may be the situations where altering or reviewing of criminal court judgment is contemplated in the Code itself or any other law for the time being in force.

JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the impugned Orders dated 07.10.2021 and 26.10.2021 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Court No. 10, Family Court, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1024 of 2006, Smt. Rajrani and Others vs. Om Prakash, on an application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. relating to Police Station Malihabad, District Lucknow.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the revisionist has stated that he had earlier filed Revision No. 838 of 2021, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh revision by this Court vide its order dated 07.12.2021. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no. 2 alongwith her two children, who were minors at that time and have now become major and arrayed as opposite party no. 3 and 4. Such application was filed on 27.11.2006 stating, therein, that she was constantly being harassed with the demand of more dowry ever since the time of her marriage she was also thrown out from the matrimonial home. Later on a compromise occurred between the parties due to the intervention of family and friends. She came back to the matrimonial house where a son was born to her, later on a daughter was also born to her and at the time of making such application they were aged four years and two and a half years, respectively. After the daughter was born, the relationship between the applicant and the revisionist soured to such extent that she had to leave her matrimonial home again and is now residing in her parental house. Since September 2006 till the date of filing of application, no maintenance was given to her by her husband.

3. The applicant was uneducated and unskilled woman and it has been difficult for her to raise her two children, therefore, the maintenance application was filed. On the other hand, the revisionist owned five bighas of land, where he grew vegetables and earned round about Rs. 15,000/- per month, also, he was doing wholesale business in Kanpur from which he earned around Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month. The income of the revisionist being more than 30,000/- per month, a prayer was made that the applicant and her two children be granted Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance.

4. The revisionist after issuance of notice filed written statement objection. Thereafter documentary and oral evidence were taken. Thereafter, learned trial court passed the order impugned by which the application of the revisionist paper no. C-45 for forensic examination of the handwriting and photographs in the documentary evidence that were produced by the revisionist was prayed to be got done. The revisionist had argued that in the cross-examination of the applicant on 17.10.2019, she had admitted that the two children who were shown in the photograph were not that of the revisionist, and the handwriting and signatures on paper no. C-32/5 and C-32/6 were not hers.

5. Learned trial court placed reliance upon Section 14 of the Family Courts Act with regard to the power of the Family Court to take documentary evidence into account for a proper adjudication of the case. Even such documentary evidence could be looked into which under the Evidence Act, 1972 was otherwise not admissible. Learned trial court observed that the opposite party who was merely delaying the decision on the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by moving such an application for getting forensic examination done. In the written statement that were filed by him and the objections paper no. A- 3, he had not taken any such objections that were now being raised at the time of arguments that the applicant had married some other person and that the children were not his. The application no. C-45 was rejected and a direction was issued that the matter be listed on 16.10.2021 as the High Court had already passed an order saying that the application of maintenance be decided within three