The Telangana High Court in the case Azmeera Jagan v State of Telangana observed and has reiterated that the revisional Court has no jurisdiction for setting aside the findings of facts as recorded by the subordinate Court and substitute its own findings.
The single bench headed by Justice Juvvadi Sridevi in the case observed and has stated that the revisional Court has to confine itself to the legality and propriety of the findings of the subordinate Court as to whether the subordinate Court acted within the jurisdiction of them.
In the present case, the court observed that section 397 and section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers only limited power on the revisional Court to the extent of satisfying about the legality, propriety or regularity of the proceedings or orders of the lower Court and not to act like appellate Court for other purposes which includes the recording of new findings of fact which being on fresh appraisal of evidence.
In the said case, the bench was hearing a criminal revision case filed by the petitioner-husband, wherein challenging the order of the Family Court which enhanced the maintenance amount on a petition filed by his wife and minor children under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in 2018.
Therefore, in 2010, the Family court enhanced the maintenance ordered from an amount Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent wife and Rs.5,000/- per month each to the two respondent’s minor children.
Before the Court, the counsel appearing for the petitioner husband submitted that he has entered a settlement before Lok Adalat and the respondent wife agreed upon it that the petitioner will pay Rs.5000/- to respondent wife and each minor children and there being no change of circumstances to enhance the amount therefore the family court erred in altering the maintenance.
Further, the counsel appearing for the respondent wife and minor children submitted before the court that the standard of living has increased and therefore the court has rightly enhanced the maintenance amount. Thus, the husband who has a well-paying job and respondent has no means of livelihood to maintain herself and children. Thus, the order under challenge does not suffer from any kind of illegality.
However, the question which came before the court for consideration was whether the order of Family Court suffers from any such illegality, impropriety, or irregularity, so as to interfere with the same in exercise of powers under section 397 and section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The High Court after hearing both the parties decided that it being a fit case for enhancing the maintenance as there is a hike in cost of living from 2010 to 2018. It has also been explained by the court that it being a well settled law that the revisional Court cannot set aside the findings of facts.
Accordingly, the said court found that there being no illegality or impropriety to interfere with the same by exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 and Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure.