1O. ln revision against lhe maintcnance order passcd in proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C., the rcvisional 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 legitimate / illegitimate, being pre-eminently questions of fact, cannot be reopened and the revisional court cannot substitute its own vie',vs. The High Court, thereforc, is not required in revision to interfcrc with the positive finding in favour of the marriage and patronage of a child. But where finding is a negative one, the High Court would entertain the revision, re-evaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion whether the findings or conclusions reached by the Magistrate are legally 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 lSmt.f vs. Naresh Pal (19981 8 SCC 447 5f, as also in the case of Parvathy Rani Sahu vs. Bishnu Sahu (2OO2l 10 SCC 51O. Thus, the ratio decidendi which emerges out of a catena of authorities on the efficacy 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 revisional jurisdiction."
