Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 858/2022, CRL.M.A. 26213/2022, CRL.M.A.
26215/2022 MOHIT BAJAJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nagender Deswal, Adv.
Through:
Date of Decision: 14th December 2022
JUDGMENT
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
1. The present revision petition under sections 397 r/w 401 and 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 12.09.2022 in Maintenance petition No. 224/2016 titled ‘Manju Bajaj & Anr. Vs. Mohit Bajaj’, whereby, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, has passed the following directions: VERMA
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has passed the order ignoring the evidence on record. Learned counsel has invited the attention of this Court to Para 14 of the impugned order whereby the petitioner has specifically stated that he is earning only Rs. 15,000 - 20,000/- per month. Learned counsel submits that it is an admitted case that the respondent-wife did not lead any evidence VERMA as to the income of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that even presuming that the petitioner is earning Rs. 50,000/- per month, he has to spend a lot of money on himself for carrying out his service obligations.
3. Learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court has also fallen into a grave error while deciding the maintenance application as the earlier interim maintenance was only Rs. 12,000/- per month.
4. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. The Courts can exercise its revisional jurisdiction only if there is patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or an error apparent on the face of the record. In revisional jurisdiction, the Courts cannot substitute its opinion with that of the Courts below. Where two views are possible and the trial court has taken one view which is a possible and plausible view, merely because another view is attractive, the High Court should not interfere and would be in error in interfering with the finding of the trial court in its revisional jurisdiction. High Courts cannot reappraise evidence and come to a different conclusion. The revisional jurisdiction operates within narrow limits and can be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice require interference for the correction of gross miscarriage of justice. It cannot be exercised because the lower court has taken a different view or misappreciated evidence on record. In absence of any manifest error of law or procedural defects, the High Courts should refrain from interfering with the order of trial court in its revisional jurisdiction. The revisional court does not function as a court of appeal and cannot reappreciate evidence. Revisional jurisdiction is VERMA normally exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. The High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact of the trial Court.
5. In the present case, the order of the trial court is neither perverse nor is there any manifest illegality. The opinion thus cannot be substituted. I do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Trial Court which requires the interference of this Court. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J DECEMBER 14, 2022 VERMA