I.D. Dua, J.
1. These two connected revisions arise out of malntelnanca (proceedings initiated by Smt. Parmeshwari Cai Under Section 488 Criminal Procedure Code. Criminal Revision 1573 of 1962 is at the instance of Bool Chand the husband praying for quashing the order passed by the learned Magistrate whereas Criminal Revision 551 of 1963 is by Smt. Parmeshwari Bai praying for enhancement of the amount fixed by the learned Magistrate. It may be mentioned that the learned Magisrate 'had granted a sum of Rs. 40/- P.M. Revisions preferred toy both the: parties before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, were dismissed.
2. On revision in this Court Shri K. L. Sachdeva, 'learned Counsel for the husband has tried to take me through the evidence and has attempted to assail the conclusion on question of fact arrived at by the learned 'Magistrate and endorsed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on revision. He has sought support for inducing me to go into the facts and re-assess the evidence toy relying on a Bench decision of this Court (to which I was a party) in Mst. Dhan Kaur v. Niranjan Singh 1960-62 Punj LR 395, and emphasis has been laid on para 14 of the judgment at page 402. It was observed there:-
The learnad counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge in this case has given a finding that the respondent had neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner and that this finding is based on the statement of the petitioner herself. The respondent's counsel on the other hand submitted that the trial Court had given a contrary finding on this point and that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not competent to alter that finding of fact given by the trial Court in revision. This argument of the respondent's counsel, however, does not appeal to me because the provisions of Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are quite clear. The revisicmal Court can go into the question whether the finding given by an inferior Court is correct, legal or otherwise proper.
This observation it may be meintioned was made by the. 'learned Single Judge (Bedi J.) who disposed of the revision finally after the Division Bench had decided the question of law referred, with the result that this observation has not the force of the Bench decision.
3. The matter has recently been considered by the Supreme Court in Mehnga Singh v. Smt. Joginder Kaur, Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1960, DA 18-1-1962 (SC), In-which the following observations made by this Court in the same case (Criminal Revision No. 868 of 1959) (Punj), were approved and were described to be unexceptionable and to have laid down the correct proposition of law.-
The Court of revision rarely, if at all interferes with orders passed under Chapter XXXVI of the Coda of Criminal Procedure and that only if the lower Court has failed to exercise its discretion judicially and where substantial justice has not been done. So long as the proceedings of the Magistrate are in accordance with law and in order, and so long as he has considered and estimated the evidence, his decision, generally speaking, is entitled to be upheld and should not be disturbed even if the Court of Revision considers that while sitting as a Court of original jurisdiction, it would have come to a different conclusion on the evidence.
This being the legal position, in my opinion on the facts and circumstances of this case it is not at all desirable to reopen the matter, and to re-assess and re-evaluate the evidence on which the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion he has. Besides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this case also appears to have independently considered the entire case and has agreed with the viaws of the Court of first instance. As I read the two orders, that of the learned Magistrate and also that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it appears to me that there is no infirmity disclosed which would justify reconsideration of the evidence.
4. The learned Counsel then took up the question of quantum of maintenance and submitted that the amount flied is too high. He has tried to assail the order of the Court below on the ground that Exhibit P. A. to which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has made reference and on which he has relied for affirming and endorsing the conclusion of the learned Magistrate has been admitted by the Patwari himself to be erroneous or mistaken He has also tried to seek support for the contention that the husband has very little income and has not very much land as is found by the Courts below, by referring to his own evidence.
Now, according to the learned Magistrate who has dealt with this aspect at considerable length and has taken, pains to go through the entire relevant evidence the conclusion reached was that the husband owned about 21 bighas and 1 biswa of land in Malukpura. The Petards testimony was that a part of this land had been disposed of though official information1 had not yet reached him. It is also in evidence that an attempt was made by the husband to assign a part of the landed property to his son and the conclusion of the learned Magistrate is that this was done with a view to defeat the claim of the wife. The learned Additional Sessions Judge expressly agreed with this inference.
5. It is significant that argument based on Exhibit P. A. being erroneous in some respect was not made the subject-matter of revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge nor in this Court so far as the grounds of revision are concerned. Indeed this was not even argued before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In this background I am afraid it is hardly open to the learned Counsel for the husband to re-open and reagitate this aspect. Some reference was made to certain khatuni parchis stated to have been produced by the husband himself but these parchis do not seem to have been properly proved or exhibited even. Keeping in view the other avidence on the record also It Is difficult to attach any Importance to any parch In preference to the document on which the two Courts below have relied for their conclusion.
5A. For the foregoing reasons Criminal Revision No. 1573 of 1962 fails and is hereby dismissed.
6. On behalf of the wife also a revision has been filed praying for enhancement of the rate of maintenance. In my opinion no cogent ground has been shown as to why the conclusion of the two Courts below should be Interfered with on revision with the result that this petition also fails and is hereby dismissed.