Rabindra Sethi vs Premalata Sethi

J. Das, J.—This revision petition arises out of the order dated 17.7.1985 passed by Sri R. Dash, Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in Criminal Rivision No. 60 of 1984 setting aside the order dated 9.5.1984 passed by Sri B.C. Tripathy, Sub-divisional-Judicial Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur, in Mise Case No. 28 of 1980 u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure giving a finding that the Petitioner (in that case) Premalata Sethi is not the legally married wife of the opposite party, Rabindra Sethi (in that case).

The aggrieved party Premalata Sethi filed a revision in the Sessions Court, Cuttack. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge after discussing the evidence in the case took the view contrary to the findings of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate and held that Premalata Sethi is the legally married wife of Rabindra Sethi.

The course adopted by the Second Additional Sessions Judge is erroneous, as the revisional Court is not a Court of appeal and in this case the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge has acted as if it is hearing an appeal. The established principles 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 misappreciated the evidence on record. See Thakur Das (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, and Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration, . 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. In this case the revisional Court has acted erroneously and without any regard to the established principles of law and it appreciated the entire evidence on record and gave a finding of fact regarding these-called marriage and the said finding is contrary to the finding of the original Court.

In the above circumstances, the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and the same must be set aside.

In the result, the revision is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge passed in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 1984 is set aside. It is further made clear that the aggrieved party may approach the Civil Court for a declaration of her status, if so advised.