( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 548 OF 2009 Sau. Poonam Jitendra Saindane PETITIONER VERSUS Jitendra Sharad Saindane & another RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.B. Patil, advocate for respondent No. 1. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, APP for respondent No. 2. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 4th September, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. By consent, the petition is being disposed of in as much as the revisional Court has directed remand of the matter to the trial Court to decide afresh the maintenance application filed under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code only to the extent of the applicant No.2 (minor child) and concluding the claim of the applicant No. 1 (wife). 3. The reasons recorded by the learned Sessions ( 2 ) Judge would show that ordinarily, the revisional Court would not undertake upon itself the task of appreciating the evidence adduced before the trial Court. This may be the settled legal position in the context of the revisional jurisdiction so far as other matters are concerned, but the application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code stands on somewhat different footings. The proceedings are of quasi-civil and quasi- criminal nature. Therefore, the Sessions Court is required to consider the evidence of the parties atleast to verify whether the findings of the learned Magistrate suffer from propriety or illegality. The revisional Court cannot abdicate itself from duty to examine the record and to ex facie appreciate the evidence in the cases where quasi-civil rights are ventilated like in the present case. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel for both sides would urge to remit the matter to the learned Sessions Judge to decide the criminal revision application No. 233/2007 afresh on its own merits and after taking into account the relevant record for the purpose of appreciation though it may not be appreciation like an appellate Court. ( 3 ) 4. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of remand rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in the revisional jurisdiction is set aside. Without expressing any opinion on merits, the learned Sessions Judge is directed to re-hear the criminal revision application and decide the same afresh on merits and in particular, regarding claims of both the original applicants. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criwp548-09