H.S. BHALLA, J:
1. This revision is directed against the Judgment dated 19.1.2002 passed by Learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Crl. Proceeding No. 538 of 1995, whereby the Learned Judge, Family Court rejected the petition filed by wife-Petitioner under Section 125, Cr. P. C.
2. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party supported and defended the order passed by the Trial Court.
4. The scope and ambit of appeal and revision are different. The Revisional Court is not the Court of appeal. Placing reliance upon Thakur Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., AIR 1978 SC 1 and Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 1960, it has been pointed out by this Court in Rabindra Sethi v. Premlata Sethi, 1989 (II) OLR 548, that the established principle of law is that the revisional jurisdiction is not to be ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower Court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis appreciated the evidence on record. If the Revisional Court on appreciation of the evidence on record and re-appraisal of the evidence, takes a view different from and contrary to the view taken by the lower Court, then also it cannot be a ground for interfering in revision. It is only when the Trial Judge has not kept in view the correct position of law and has failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective, it would be within the jurisdiction of the Revisional Court to appraise the evidence and come to a conclusion as to whether the conclusion of the trying Magistrate was justified or not. Where the conclusion of a Magistrate is grossly and palpably unjust or is based upon a manifestly erroneous approach and erroneous appraisal of the evidence, and further the Magistrate has misconceived the evidence and has come to an obviously wrong conclusion the Revisional Court would be fully justified to go into the facts and correct the error that has cropped into the Judgment of the trying Magistrate. In such a case, the Revisional Court is not interfering on the ground of inadequacy of evidence, but on the ground that there has been a clear case of miscarriage of justice.
5. In the present case, the Learned Judge, Family Court has observed that the Opp. Party has not neglected or refused to maintain the Petitioner and that the Petitioner has left the matrimonial home out of her own free will and thus, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. The said order was passed on 19.1.2002 and 8 years have elapsed in the meantime.
6. The interference of the Court would be justified where the decision of the lower Court is palpably or grossly erroneous or there was any compliance of the provision of law and that there was a violation of the statutory requirement. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to point out any error in the impugned order and I find that the finding of fact recorded by the Learned Judge was on the basis of the evidence put forward by the parties and there is nothing to be set right.
7. Having carefully gone through the records of the case, I am satisfied that it was a possible view, which has been taken by the Learned Trial Judge and it cannot be characterized as illegal or perverse. The revisional jurisdiction could be exercised only in exceptional cases where some manifest illegality or prevention of gross miscarriage of justice is pointed out. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower Court has taken a wrong view of the law or misappropriated the evidence on record.
8. In the final analysis, I find no interference is called for and accordingly, the revision fails and the same is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Comments