Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MMO No.12 of 2004 Judgment reserved on: 24.11.2008. Dated of Decision: December 01, 2008. Ram Gopal. …..… Petitioner. Versus Smt. Vidya Devi and others. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. P.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J: The respondents sought the maintenance from the petitioner herein by resorting to the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned trial court awarded the amount of Rs.500/- per month to each of them w.e.f. 1.1.2001, which was upheld in Criminal Revision No.1- CR.R/10 of 2003, decided on 27.12.2003, by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner has filed the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the concurrent findings of fact qua the relationship of respondent Vidya Devi with the petitioner herein as his wife and the 2 respondents No.2 to 4 having borne out from the said wedlock and their willful neglect and refusal to maintain them. Shri P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the evidence on record proves that respondent No.1 is the wife of Babu Ram and respondents No.2 to 4 are his children. He also pointed out that said Babu Ram has filed a petition for divorce against her and she was shown as his wife in the Parivar register. The school record also shows Babu Ram as the father of her children and he admitted this fact in his statement. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the present petition is not maintainable, even the petitioner has given wrong parentage of respondents 2 to 4 in the title of this petition contrary to the title in the judgment/order of the lower courts. However, he supported the findings of the Courts below. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have gone through the record carefully. In Chundavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram [ JT 1986 SC 619] it is held by the apex Court that unless there is any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention it is not for the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere, however, if there is evidence on record on which a finding can be arrived at and if the court has not misdirected itself either on law or on fact, then in exercise of the powers 3 under the aforesaid Articles, the High Court may refrain from interfering with such findings made by the appropriate authorities. Although the powers of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution are very wide and extensive, over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relations to which it exercises jurisdiction, as held in Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj (Deceased) Through LRs and Ors. [JT 2008 (10) SC 56] but the Supreme Court, that such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a Court of Appeal or a Court of Error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate Court or inferior Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior Court or Tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior Tribunals within the limits of law. The inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are concerned, it can only be exercised if there is misuse of the process of the Court causing miscarriage of justice, that too in the rarest of rare case. In the instant case, admittedly the name of Babu Ram in Ex.PW5/A family register of the Panchayat appears to have 4 been added by erasing earlier entry against the name of petitioner Vidya Devi. Further the extract of the family register Ex.PW4/A and entries in the photocopy Ex.PW5/A of the said register both are irreconcilable. Against the names of Satya , Murto Devi and Tulsa Devi in Ex.PW5/A, the name of Babu Ram finds mentioned. According to PW5 Partap Singh, he did notice the rubbing in those entries but did not report about the manipulation to his senior officers. Further, the divorce petition Ex.RW1/A filed by Babu Ram against Vidya Devi was got dismissed in default by him after the filing the reply Ex.PB by Vidya Devi, wherein she denied her to be his wife. She clearly stated that he was a legally wedded wife of Ram Gopal petitioner. There is still another proof wherein she was shown to be the wife of Ram Gopal. The respondent No.1 had undergone vasectomy operation on 14.12.1992, the medical certificate to this effect is Ex.PB, wherein she has been recorded as wife of Ram Gopal. On the other hand, respondent No.1 as PW-1 has substantiated her case and produced her father Shiv Ram as PW2 to corroborate her version and also examined PW3 Kedar Singh, who was present at the time of her marriage with the petitioner. PW4 Dr. S.K. Sablok has proved the certificate Ex.PB of vasectomy operation showing petitioner as her husband from the official records, which is a relevant evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, respondent 5 No.1 prima-facie has been able to prove herself as the wife of petitioner, consequently respondents No.2 to 4 are her children from him. The respondent-wife is an illiterate lady. Her thumb impression on the school admission papers and other documents showing her as the wife of Babu Ram are of no consequence, as the petitioner-husband was required to prove its intelligent execution owing to her illiteracy. The allegations of the remarriage with Kala Devi by the petitioner stands proved on record. Neglect and refusal to maintain by petitioner is writ large. The petitioner is an able bodied man and a permanent employee as beldar. Therefore, in these circumstances, keeping in view the settled law referred above, the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the courts below requires no interference, accordingly the petition is dismissed. Cr.M.P.No. 116/2005 Cr.M.P. No.145/2007 Cr.M.P. No.332/2008 Cr.M.P.No.333/2008. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, all these applications have become infructuous. December 01, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.