\r,ould not substitute its own hnding and upset the maintenance order recorded by the Magistrate. 10. In revision against the maintenance order passed in proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C., the revisional court has no power to re-assess evidence and substitute its own findings. Under revisional jurisdiction, the questions whether the applicant is a married wife, the children are Iegitimate / illegitimate, being pre-eminently questions of fact, cannot be reopened and the revisional court cannot substitute its own views. The High Court, therefore, is not required in revision to interfere with the positive hnding in favour of the marriage and patronage of a child. But where hnding is a-negative one, the High Court u,ould entertain the revision, re-evaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion whether the findings or conclusions reached by the Magistrate are Iegally sustainable or not as negative finding has evil consequences on the life of both child and the woman. This was the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Santosh (Smt.) vs. Naresh Pal (f998f a SCC 447 51, as also in the casc of Parvathy Rani Sahu vs. Bishnu Sahu (2OO2) 10 SCC 51O. Thus, the ratio decidendi u'hich emcrges out of a catena of authorities on the elficacy' and value of the order passed by the Magistrate while determining maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. is that it should not be disturbed while exercising revisionaljurisdiction."
